includes, but is not limited to, those “whose work affects business operations to a substantial degree, even though their assignments are tasks related to the operation of a particular segment of the business.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.205(c). This does not include “routine clerical duties” or even operating expensive equipment or activities that, if improperly performed, would cause loss to an employer. 29 C.F.R. § 541.205(c)(2). The planners’ primary duty can only be viewed as substantially important to AEP’s operations. Their work—interpreting and carrying out plant policies, creating plans that permit the continued operation of the equipment and systems that generate AEP’s main product—affects AEP’s general business operations to a substantial degree. See, e.g., Haywood, 121 F.3d at 1072 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the planners themselves testified
holding that property not subject to sequestration is not therefore exempt holding that the principal must have control and supervision over the details of the agents work holding that employees work while not involving the principal service of the employer was nevertheless important to the success of the firm and therefore exempt holding that employer is not vicariously hable for employees negligence while driving to work where such driving conferred no special benefit upon employer other than to make employees services available holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa