United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a case about $371.20 in allegedly unpaid overtime
compensation. Factoring in possible liquidated damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq., Zachary Hesse's damages
claim could double to $742.40. Potential attorney's fees
are unknown, but likely many multiples of that amount.
has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 27),
claiming there is no dispute that he worked overtime, or
about the number of overtime hours he worked without proper
compensation. His former employer, Atlas Mortgage Partners,
LLC, and its owner, Kate Matties, oppose the Motion. (Doc.
No. 31). Because Hesse has not supported his Motion
in the manner required by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, it will be denied.
April 1, 2015, through at least June 2016, Hesse worked
full-time at Atlas. (Doc. No. 28-1 at 1-25). His hourly rate
of pay was initially $10.50, but that was increased to $11.50
on June 17, 2015, and increased to $12.50 on March 1, 2016.
(Id. at 1, 6, 25).
filled out his own time sheets, and provided them to Matties
or an office manager for payment. (Doc. No. 32 at 2; Doc. No.
28-1 at 2-3). In those time sheets, Hesse claims to have
worked anywhere between 40.5 to 50.5 in a given week.
asserts that, prior to September 30, 2015, he was paid at his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked during a week. (Doc.
No. 32 at7). After that date, Hesse was paid time and
one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, and
this practice continued throughout the remainder of his
employment. (Id.). Thus, the crux of this case is
the additional half of the regular rate of pay per hour for
overtime worked, i.e. the $5.25 per hour overtime
until his raise on June 17, 2016, and the $5.75 per hour
overtime until, Hesse claims, Atlas first began paying time
upon his time sheets, Hesse calculates that he worked 50.25
hours of overtime from April 1, 2015 to September 16, 2015,
apparently leaving it to the Court to determine the amount
due by analyzing the time sheets, determining the amount of
overtime, and setting a figure based upon whether he was
being paid $10.50 or $11.50 per hour at the time. In response
to Hesse's statement of fact on this issue, Defendants
assert that “[t]he documents speak for
themselves.” (Doc. 31 at 7 ¶ 31). However, in
their response brief, Defendants state that
“[c]onsidering the hours worked during the relevant
workweeks, Plaintiff actually worked an aggregate total of
51.5 overtime hours, not the 50.25 he claims in his Motion
for Summary Judgment, ” and this amounts “to a
total of $361.70 in overtime wages alleged[ly] owed to
Plaintiff for the relevant periods.” (Doc. No. 31 at
surprisingly, Hesse agrees with the larger number of hours,
and, in his reply brief assert that he “is entitled to
$371.20” in damages, plus a like amount in liquidated
damages. (Doc. No. 35 at 2). Hence the figure set forth at
the outset of this decision.
207(a) of the FLSA generally requires that employers pay
employees specified hourly rates for up to 40 hours per week
and pay overtime compensation of one and one-half times the
regular rate for hours worked in excess of that threshold
amount. 29 U.S.C. § 207. To prevail in an FLSA overtime
suit, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that he “performed work for which he was not
properly compensated.” Moran v. Al Basit LLC,
788 F.3d 201, 205 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Anderson v. Mt.
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946)). As the
parties in this case agree, this, in turn, requires a
plaintiff to establish (1) “that the plaintiff was
employed by the defendant, ” (2) “that the
defendant was an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce,
” and (3) “that the defendant failed to pay
overtime compensation to the plaintiff for each hour worked
in excess of forty hours per week.” Roberts v.
Corr. Corp. of Am., 2015 WL 3905088, at *8 (M.D. Tenn.
June 25, 2015); see Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr.
Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2013) (identifying same
as “basic elements of an FLSA claim”); Benion
v. Lecom, Inc., 2016 WL 2801562, at *4 (E.D. Mich. May
13, 2016) (collecting cases stating these are the essential
review of Defendants' arguments suggest that they do not
oppose Hesse's Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds
that he cannot ultimately establish a basis for at least some
relief. Rather, their position is that the Motion is not
adequately supported as required by Rule 56. This Court
Rule 56, summary judgment is only appropriate where there are
no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). In ruling
on such a Motion, the facts and inferences to be drawn
therefrom must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party,
Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc.,
509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007), with the moving party
always bearing the burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue as to a material fact, F.T.C. v. E.M.A.
Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 630 (6th Cir. 2014).
Hesse has failed to carry that burden with respect to at
least two of the three essential elements of an FLSA unpaid