Plaintiffs Frances Peters, 50s, and Janet Moller, 50s, were both general restaurant managers at two different Coco’s restaurants, one in Poway and the other in La Jolla. They claimed that they were misclassified as exempt and that they were entitled to overtime wages and penalties for missed meal periods. They claimed that they could take a meal from time to time, but they could not enjoy a duty-free meal period, as they had to work through their meals. The plaintiffs sued Catalina Restaurant Group, operating as CoCos, for violations of the Labor Code. The defense contended that the plaintiffs were appropriately classified as exempt under either the Executive Exemption or the Administrative Exemption applicable in California. The defense contended that under the Executive Exemption, individuals employed in an executive capacity are exempt from applicable California overtime and meal and rest period requirements. A person “employed in an executive capacity” would include any employee who (1) earns a monthly salary equivalent of no less than twice the state minimum wage for full-time employment; (2) whose duties and responsibilities involve the management of the enterprise in which he/she is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; (3) who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees therein; (4) who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring or firing and as to the advancement and promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given particular weight; (5) who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment; and (6) who is primarily engaged in duties which meet the test of exemption. The plaintiffs stipulated that the first four requirements were met, but disputed the applicability of the last two requirements. The defense argued that the evidence showed the plaintiffs were expected to and did exercise discretion and independent judgment on a regular basis. The general manager position required them to make decisions regarding staffing, customer service, problem resolution, enforcement of company policies and procedures, and business decisions that could impact the profitability of the business. Moreover, the plaintiffs openly admitted making numerous hiring decisions and recommendations regarding performance reviews, discipline and termination. The evidence also showed that the plaintiffs were primarily engaged in exempt duties. An individual is “primarily engaged” in exempt duties when she spends more than one half of her work time so engaged. The defense also argued that the general managers were exempt under the administrative exemption. California Wage Order 5-2001, provides that restaurant workers employed in administrative capacities are exempt from the overtime requirements. Persons are employed in an administrative capacity if: a) their duties and responsibilities involve office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of their employer or the employer’s customers, and b) they customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment, and c) they either assist a proprietor or a bona fide executive, or execute special assignments and tasks under only general supervision. The evidence showed the plaintiffs engaged in a variety of non-manual, administrative tasks relating to the management policies or general business operations of Coco’s including: enforcement of company policies and procedures, ensuring legal compliance, purchasing, sales promotion, quality control, responding to customer service issues, adjusting customer bills by meal discounts and complementary dishes or meals, scheduling, adjusting labor budgets, ordering and inspecting for quality food, beverages, and supplies, managing costs and profitability, and inspecting and enforcing food safety standards. The defense also argued that even if it were true that the plaintiffs performed non-exempt tasks for a majority of their time, the defense believed the plaintiffs would still be exempt because the defendant’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job require the general manager to be primarily engaged in exempt work. The defense argued that the plaintiffs could not defeat their exempt status by their own sub-standard performance or refusal to perform the exempt tasks the job required. The plaintiffs argued that defendant’s policies and procedures were so restrictive as to remove all discretion independent judgment from them., Each plaintiff sought over $100,000 in overtime wages and meal period compensation (more than $200,000 total). They also sought recovery of attorney fees and costs.