Orlando Estrada v. FTS USA, LLC

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Orlando Estrada. 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: 16-17159

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17159
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-23388-KMM
ORLANDO ESTRADA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. §
216(b),
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FTS USA, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 30, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17159

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Orlando Estrada appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
his former employer, FTS USA, on his unpaid overtime claim under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. After careful consideration of the
record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error.
An employee bringing an FLSA claim for unpaid overtime wages initially
bears “the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not
properly compensated.” Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d
1299, 1315 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328
U.S. 680, 686–87, 66 S. Ct. 1187, 1192 (1946)). When an employer has failed to
keep records or the records cannot be trusted, this burden of proving work without
proper compensation is “relaxed.” See id. Under such circumstances, an employee
satisfies his burden “if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he
was improperly compensated” and he “produces sufficient evidence to show the
amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” Id.
(quoting Anderson, 328 U.S. at 687–88, 66 S. Ct. at 1192).
Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Estrada and applying
the relaxed burden for proving work performed without proper compensation,
Estrada’s claim fails as a matter of law. Estrada offers only vague and
contradictory assertions regarding the work for which he was allegedly not paid,
and those assertions cannot support “just and reasonable inference[s]” about the
2

Case: 16-17159

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

Page: 3 of 3

nature or extent of that work. See id. Estrada has not created a genuine issue of
material fact about whether he performed work for which he was not paid.
AFFIRMED.

3