Maschmeyer's Nursery Inc. - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
               The dispute between the parties focuses on the third                   
          requirement.5  Respondent argues that because Maschmeyer was                
          employed as petitioner’s president, in order to satisfy the third           
          requirement petitioner must demonstrate that Maschmeyer was                 
          required to use the residence in order to perform his executive             
          duties.  In respondent’s view, petitioner has not satisfied its             
          burden.                                                                     
               We are not persuaded by respondent’s logic, which reflects             
          an unduly narrow understanding of the scope of Maschmeyer’s                 
          executive duties.  Maschmeyer testified that petitioner needed              
          someone on the premises at all times for the security of its                
          500-acre nursery and valuable equipment, for supervision of                 
          resident migrant workers, and for shipment of trees after                   
          business hours during the busy harvest season.  He testified that           
          for more than a decade the residence was occupied by the foreman            
          who performed these duties.  He testified that he assumed these             
          duties when the foreman secured employment elsewhere.                       
          Maschmeyer’s testimony was credible and uncontroverted.  It is              
          clear from the nature of these duties that they required presence           
          on-site at all times during the work week.  If Maschmeyer had not           
          been required by his responsibilities to reside on-site, there              
          would be no explanation for the fact that he continued to live              

               5 Both parties seem to have taken it for granted that                  
          improvements to a residence should be treated no differently from           
          the residence for purposes of this analysis.  We shall therefore            
          do likewise.                                                                




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011