but rather, the test “must be applied in the light of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the question arises.” Id. § 541.207(b). See Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 203 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir.2000) (finding that “flexibility is appropriate when applying this rule”). First, Seltzer was paid a salary commensurate with her level of responsibility. Seltzer’s salary was significantly higher than other non-exempt assistants who did not work for senior executives for Dres-dner. Seltzer’s total compensation in 1999 was $114,305.68, while a non-exempt assistant who worked with Seltzer for Seegal was paid $68,701.52, including overtime, for that same year. (See Soto Aff. ¶ 4). See Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 675 F.2d 516, 522 (2d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Lott, 203 F.3d at 331 (holding that
holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding that a mill and gin could be considered part of an exempt homestead if they were part of the exempt realty holding that because nondischargeable debt based on fraud was not one of the four enumerated exceptions to exempt property the exempt property was not liable for the creditors surviving claim holding that memoranda prepared by various levels of staff lawyers within the department of justice tax division and by an assistant united states attorney were exempt from disclosure under foia exemption 5 holding that assistant managers were exempt under the executive exemption because inter alia even taking their longer hours into account the exempt employees were paid substantially higher wages