Kenneth Klein v. Floranada Warehouse and Storag

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Kenneth Klein. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11342

Date Filed: 01/26/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11342
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-60032-WPD
KENNETH KLEIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FLORANADA WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE, INC.,
a Florida profit corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 26, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Klein is a former employee of Floranada Warehouse and Storage
(Floranada). He brought suit against Floranada seeking damages for alleged

Case: 16-11342

Date Filed: 01/26/2017

Page: 2 of 2

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Klein alleged that Floranada failed to
pay him overtime pay at time-and-a-half for hours he worked in excess of forty
(40) hours per week, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). A jury decided in favor
of Floranada, finding that Klein was properly paid and was not due any overtime
compensation (beyond the commissions or non-discretionary bonus payments for
which Klein was partially granted summary judgment). On appeal, Klein
challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict and his
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
We have reviewed and considered the briefs and the record, and we have
drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of Floranada, the nonmoving party. See
Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir.
2004). There was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. In
reaching that conclusion, we find no merit to Klein’s argument that his pay
structure emanated from a vain attempt to establish a Belo agreement. 1 Therefore,
we conclude that the motions for directed verdict and motion for judgment
notwithstanding the jury’s verdict were properly denied. The decisions of the
district court are
AFFIRMED.

1

Walling v. A.H. Belo Corp., 316 U.S. 624, 62 S. Ct. 1223 (1942).
2