Here are some cases you can cite to the next time a defense firm tries to use your client’s resume against them in an overtime misclassification case under the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions: Schaefer v. IMPC, 358 F.3d 394, 400-01 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e have recognized that resumes may not provide the most accurate picture of an employee’s job because resumes are typically designed to enhance the employee’s duties and responsibilities in order to obtain a job.”); Wolfslayer v. IKON, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1106, *29 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2005) (recognizing “statements [in resumes] must be taken with a grain of salt.”); Smith v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21996 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2011) (“The focus is on the evidence of the plaintiff’s day-to-day duties, and not on job descriptions, resumes, or performance evaluations.”); Chicca v. St. Lukes Episcopal Health Sys., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32399 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2012) (“To discern what an employee’s actual, day-to-day job activities are, general job descriptions contained in an employee’s resume or prepared by the employer may be considered, but are not determinative.”);Johnston v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80053 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2008) (“A plaintiff seeking recovery of unpaid overtime therefore is not precluded from arguing that his or her day-to-day activities differed from those described in his or her job description, resume or other documents.”); Ale v. TVA, 269 F.3d 680, 689 n2 (6th Cir. 2001) (“there is reason to believe that these resumes may not provide the most accurate picture of an employee’s job because resumes are typically “’designed to enhance the employees duties and responsibilities in order to obtain a job.’”).