Hilda Solis, Secretary v. Hooglands Nursery LLC, e , 372 F. App'x 528 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 09-30506     Document: 00511072939          Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/07/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 7, 2010
    No. 09-30506                           Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                              Clerk
    HILDA L SOLIS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    HOOGLANDS NURSERY, L.L.C.; MICHAEL HOOGLAND,
    Defendants - Appellants
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 5:07-CV-533
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    This is an appeal from the district court's order granting summary
    judgment for Plaintiff on behalf of various employees of Defendants Michael
    Hoogland and Hooglands Nursery. The district court held that these Defendants
    violated the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 09-30506     Document: 00511072939           Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/07/2010
    No. 09-30506
    Act ("FLSA").       The district court awarded injunctive relief, compensatory
    damages, and liquidated damages.1 These Defendants appeal the district court's
    order as it relates to its non-salaried employees, arguing that there were genuine
    issues of fact regarding whether their day rate plan was invalid under the FLSA
    and whether they acted in good faith. After a review of the record, we find no
    error and AFFIRM.
    "We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, using
    the same standard as the district court." Ikossi-Anastasiou v. Bd. of Supervisors
    of La. State Univ., 
    579 F.3d 546
    , 549 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
    "Summary judgment is properly granted only when there is no genuine issue of
    any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
    law." 
    Id.
     (citing F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(c)).
    1.      Appellants first argue that there remained a genuine issue of fact
    regarding whether their day-rate method of paying their employees met
    the standards of 
    29 C.F.R. § 778.112
    . However, Appellants concede both
    before the district court and on appeal that their employees' wages were
    reduced when the employees worked less than a full day.2 Accordingly,
    Appellants did not have a valid day-rate plan in use, and their failure to
    pay their employees overtime compensation pay for time worked beyond
    forty hours per week violated 
    29 U.S.C. § 207
    (a)(1).
    1
    The district court also held that Defendant Fredric Hoogland was not an "employer"
    under the FLSA and dismissed him as a party. Appellants do not dispute this holding on
    appeal.
    2
    Appellants argue that they are not responsible for the employees' reduction in pay
    because the decision to reduce pay was not theirs but that of their bookkeeper. In addition to
    ignoring basic agency principles, this argument ignores our holding that an employer remains
    liable for FLSA violations when the violations were a result of decisions by a lower-level
    employee even under the higher standard for awarding liquidated damages. See, .e.g.,
    LeCompte v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 
    780 F.2d 1260
    , 1263 (5th Cir. 1986) (defendant's "attempt
    to thwart liability based on its asserted ignorance of [lower-level employees'] abuses is legally
    unavailing").
    2
    Case: 09-30506   Document: 00511072939     Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/07/2010
    No. 09-30506
    2.      Appellants next concede that they failed to pay their employees for two
    fifteen-minute breaks per day, in violation of the FLSA. Nevertheless,
    Appellants argue that their purported overpayment to their employees as
    part of their day-rate plan compensated for the shortfall, pursuant to 
    29 C.F.R. § 778.202
    (a).    However, as the district court properly held,
    Appellants did not employ a valid day-rate plan, because they reduced
    employees' pay for hours they did not work. Accordingly, the district court
    properly concluded that Appellants remain liable for the amounts
    deducted from their employees' compensable break periods.
    3.      Finally, Appellants argue that even if they violated the FLSA by not
    implementing a proper day-rate plan and failed to pay proper overtime
    compensation, there remained a question of fact as to whether Appellants'
    failures were in good faith, thus precluding an award of liquidated
    damages. Liquidated damages are awarded as a matter of course for
    violations of 
    29 U.S.C. § 207
    . See 
    29 U.S.C. § 216
    (b). Pursuant to 
    29 U.S.C. § 260
    , however, a district court may decline to award liquidated
    damages if the employer demonstrates that it acted reasonably and in
    good faith. Heidtman v. County of El Paso, 
    171 F.3d 1038
    , 1042 (5th Cir.
    1999). Nevertheless, even if a defendant shows both subjective good faith
    and objective reasonableness, an award of liquidated damages remains in
    the discretion of the district court. See § 260; Heidtman, 
    171 F.3d at 1042
    . After reviewing the record, the district court correctly held that
    Appellants "ha[ve] submitted no evidence that [their] reliance on a
    bookkeeper with no managerial authority to ensure [their] compliance
    with the FLSA was reasonable." Accordingly, Appellants have not carried
    their burden of showing good faith, and an award liquidated damages was
    proper.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30506

Citation Numbers: 372 F. App'x 528

Judges: Davis, Haynes, Per Curiam, Reavley

Filed Date: 4/7/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023