Employee Claiming FLSA Violations Must Produce Evidence of Violation: Eighth Circuit | Practical Law

Employee Claiming FLSA Violations Must Produce Evidence of Violation: Eighth Circuit | Practical Law

In Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the employer in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suit. The court held that an employee who sues for unpaid overtime under the FLSA must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he worked at least forty hours per week.

Employee Claiming FLSA Violations Must Produce Evidence of Violation: Eighth Circuit

Practical Law Legal Update 0-587-8725 (Approx. 4 pages)

Employee Claiming FLSA Violations Must Produce Evidence of Violation: Eighth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 11 Nov 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the employer in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suit. The court held that an employee who sues for unpaid overtime under the FLSA must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he worked at least forty hours per week.
On November 6, 2014, in Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the employer in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suit. The court held that an employee who sues for unpaid overtime under the FLSA must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he worked at least forty hours per week. (No. 14-1146, (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014).)

Background

Greg Holaway worked as a Field Service Engineer (FSE) for Stratasys, Inc. (Stratasys). Holaway worked out of his home and visited clients to install or service Stratasys printers. Stratasys categorized FSEs as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. In February 2012, Holaway complained in an email to fellow FSEs about working 45 to 60 hours per week without overtime pay. Stratasys terminated Holaway's employment for violating its online protocol.
Holaway brought a lawsuit alleging that Stratasys had violated the FLSA by not properly paying him overtime for work performed over forty hours per week. In an August 2012 deposition, he testified that he usually worked 62 to 70 hours per week and that the amount of work he performed before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m. varied each week, including traveling to clients' homes. In a March 2013 deposition, Holaway testified that he worked 60 to 70 hours per week. In a July 2013 deposition, he testified that he worked 60 hours per week.
Holaway sought damages based on his estimation that he worked 60 hours every week. The district court granted Stratasys's motion for summary judgment, finding that Holaway did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that he worked more than forty hours in any particular week. Holaway appealed to the Eight Circuit.

Outcome

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Stratasys because Holaway failed to provide sufficient evidence to allow a jury to determine that he worked more than 40 hours in any specific week. The Eighth Circuit noted that:
  • The FLSA requires non-exempt employees to be paid one and a half times their normal rate for work performed above forty hours in a particular work week (29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)).
  • An employee who brings a lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime has the burden of proving that he actually performed the work for which he alleges he was not properly paid.
  • Employers are required to keep records of wages and hours for employees who are subject to FLSA overtime protections.
  • If an employer does not keep proper records of a non-exempt employee's work hours, employees should be compensated as accurately as possible. Under this relaxed standard of proof:
    • the employee must show the work performed for which the employee was not properly compensated;
    • the employee must produce sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work performed "as a matter of just and reasonable inference;" and
    • once an employee meets the relaxed standard, the burden shifts to the employer to produce evidence in dispute of the inference's reasonableness.
(Carmody v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 713 F.3d 401 (8th Cir. 2013).)
Applying this law to the facts of Holaway, the Eight Circuit concluded that:
  • Stratasys did not keep precise records of Holaway's hours because it classified FSEs as exempt employees.
  • Holaway failed to meet the relaxed evidentiary standard because he failed to produce any evidence of the amount and extent of his work over 40 hours per week:
    • for every week of his employment; or
    • for any particular week of his employment.
  • Holaway made contradictory claims regarding the number of hours he worked per week, ranging from 45 to 70 hours.
  • He failed to show how he determined that he worked 60 hours per week (which is the number of weekly hours for which he sought compensation for every week of his employment).
  • He did not attempt to verify his hours worked against any of Stratasys's business records.
  • Holaway failed to take vacation and holidays into account when estimating that he worked 60 hours per week.
While the parties disputed whether Holaway was classified properly as an exempt employee, the Eighth Circuit did not decide that issue because Holaway did not produce sufficient evidence to show that he worked more than 40 hours per week.

Practical Implications

This decision confirms that employees who sue for payment of overtime compensation under the FLSA bear the burden of producing some sort of evidence that they actually worked more than 40 hours a week. However, the decision also highlights the importance of employers keeping records of the hours worked by their non-exempt employees, not only to comply with the record-keeping requirements of the FLSA, but to avoid liability based on the employee's one-sided proof of hours worked.