115-17. This factor clearly supports a determination that Plaintiffs are exempt. B. Application of Summary Judgment Standard to the Facts. The material facts in this case are clear and undisputed. The only dispute relates to who should interpret those facts in applying the law. In Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709, 714, 106 S.Ct. 1527, 89 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986), the Supreme Court said that: “[t]he question of how the [Plaintiffs] spent their working time ... is a question of fact. The question whether their particular activities excluded them from the overtime benefits of the FLSA is a question of law which ... is governed by the pertinent regulations promulgated by the Wage and Hour Administrator.” See also Cheatham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 578, 585 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). But see Shockley v. City of Newport News, 997
recognizing that simply having the status of an employee does not make the employer liable to a claim for overtime compensation recognizing that the ultimate question of the voluntariness of consent is one of law holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation holding the ultimate decision whether an employee is exempt from the flsas overtime compensation provisions is a question of law quoting lott v howard wilson chryslerplymouth 203 f3d 326 331 5th cir2000 holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law