On May 16, 2008, plaintiff Leonel Silva, 52, site supervisor for the San Timoteo Landfill, was retained by Burrtec Waste Industries Inc., a waste management company and landfill operator, when it became operator of the San Timoteo site. Silva had been the landfill’s site supervisor for more than a decade before Burrtec became the landfill’s operator and retained him in the same position when it began operating the site. As a result, Silva, who was the highest ranking person on the premises, directed the activities of the landfill employees, and was responsible for the safe operation of the site and for the compliance with various regulations regarding air and water quality. He also performed manual work, operating heavy equipment and doing other physical tasks, similar to those performed by non-exempt employees under his supervision. Silva’s employment ended on Sept. 16, 2011. However, he claimed that during the time of his employment with Burrtec, he was improperly classified as an exempt executive employee, causing him to not be paid for overtime or rest breaks. Silva sued Burrtec Waste Industries Inc., alleging he was misclassified as an exempt employee. Thus, Silva sought recovery of unpaid overtime wages and waiting time penalties. He also sought recovery of premium pay for missed rest breaks, alleging that Burrtec had failed to authorize or permit him to take rest breaks. The court ruled that Silva could assert claims from May 2008 through September 2011, finding that the statute of limitations was tolled while he unsuccessfully sought a remedy from the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Silva claimed Burrtec failed to provide him with any relevant, written job description identifying the types of tasks it expected him to perform. He also claimed Burrtec failed to perform any analyses or studies at the subject landfill to determine whether he would be able to perform any supervisory or managerial tasks given the small number of individuals employed at the landfill and the significant amount of manual labor that needed to be performed daily in order to ensure the landfill was operating effectively. Silva claimed that as a consequence, he spent a majority of his days performing non-supervisory tasks, including operating and repairing heavy machinery, covering and uncovering trash, digging holes at the landfill, running errands, and repairing fences. He asserted that these were non-executive tasks, which were typically performed by non-exempt, hourly employees, and that as the only employee at an already understaffed landfill, who was not required to clock in and out each day, he often worked 12-hour days, performing these non-exempt tasks without any overtime compensation. Silva also asserted that he often worked by himself for several hours in the mornings, opening up the landfill, operating machinery and moving trash, and that he did not have any discretion in the hiring or termination of employees for Burrtec. He further asserted that he rarely delegated tasks to other employees at the landfill, spending a majority of his time performing manual labor tasks, such as doing the work of operators and laborers, along with the other employees at San Timoteo because the site was understaffed. Furthermore, Silva, whose primary language is Spanish, did not fill out paperwork at the landfill and he testified that he was never given a copy of any job description and certainly was never given one in Spanish. Thus, Silva claimed that he was a “site supervisor” in name only and that he should have been classified as a non-exempt employee, entitled to overtime for any hours he worked above eight hours each day. Defense counsel disputed Silva’s claim that he had no discretion regarding hiring at the site, and Burrtec executives testified that the site was properly staffed and that Silva was properly classified. They claimed that while Silva did spend some time everyday using heavy equipment, that time, plus any other time he performed physical labor, did not make up more than half of his work time. Defense counsel also provided evidence that Silva spent time training his subordinates, observing them throughout the work day to be certain they were performing their tasks safely and correcting them if necessary. Burrtec managers further testified that they expected Silva to spend more than half of his time managing, not “doing,” and that the landfill does not run itself, in that the good safety-and-compliance record for which Silva had been praised could not have been achieved if he had not been spending a majority of his time actively managing the employees and the site. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that while Burrtec executives testified that the site was properly staffed, the contract with the county of San Bernardino revealed additional laborers were required to properly address the county’s recycling mandates. Counsel also contended that the contract that Burrtec had with the county under which Burrtec was to operate the landfill was never given to Silva either. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended, on direct under Evidence Code § 776 and through the testimony from Burrtec’s General Manager, that the second page of the job description produced in discovery and identified as an exhibit was discovered to be for a different position and that while virtually the same, there were some relatively minor differences in the text. However, defense counsel noted that the plaintiff’s contention that Burrtec did not perform any studies at the landfill was repeatedly rejected by the court as not relevant to the determination of what Silva actually did during his work day., Silva sought recovery of unpaid overtime wages, waiting time penalties for failure to pay all wages owed at the time of termination, and premium pay for Burrtec’s alleged failure to authorize him to take rest breaks during the work day.