Hajiani v. Rose Services, Inc.
Filing
39
ORDER denying 24 Motion for Summary Judgment and permitting plaintiff's claim for overtime pay under the FLSA to continue. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 6/14/2013. (ss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SALIM HAJIANI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:12-CV-177-TWT
ROSE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
The Defendant, who owns a gas station/convenience store in Conyers, Georgia,
argues that the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) (29 U.S.C. § 200 et seq.) does
not apply to the Plaintiff, who was a cashier in the store. The Defendant contends that
neither the Plaintiff nor the store engaged in commerce or in the production of goods
for commerce. Hajiani’s affidavit provides evidence that the Defendant sold gasoline
and other items from outside the state of Georgia, to citizens of other states, using
interstate communication to facilitate transactions. Therefore, the Court denies the
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, permitting Hajiani’s claim for overtime
pay under the FLSA to continue.
I. Background
The Plaintiff, Salim Hajiani, began working for Defendant’s Next Level Fuel
T:\ORDERS\12\Hajiani\12cv177\msjtwt.wpd
gas station/convenience store located in Conyers, Georgia in late 2009. (Hajiani Dep.
at 9-11.) Hajiani worked at Next Level Fuel as a cashier and also stocked shelves and
performed other tasks in the store. (Hajiani Dep. at 10; Hajiani Aff. ¶ 3.) Hajiani saw
that many customers who purchased gas from Next Level Fuel had out of state license
tags and that many truckers with out of state tags purchased diesel fuel at the store.
(Hajiani Aff. ¶¶ 6-7.) When Hajiani sold alcohol to a customer, he checked their
identification and many times these customers had driver’s licenses from a different
state. (Hajiani Aff. ¶ 8.) As a cashier, Hajiani sold many items made in a different
state and stocked shelves with many items from different states, such as tobacco,
alcohol, food, and magazines. (Hajiani Aff. ¶ 9.)
Hajiani states that he worked approximately 70 hours per week for $9 per hour.
(Hajiani Dep. at 30-31.) Hajiani says that he was paid $630 per week with a check for
$400 minus taxes taken out by the Defendant, and the remainder in cash. (Hajiani
Dep. at 30-32.) Hajiani states that he was not paid overtime for the approximately 30
hours per week he worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the FLSA.
(Id.) The Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing that the FLSA is not
triggered because neither Hajiani nor Next Level Fuel was engaged in commerce or
in the production of goods for commerce.
T:\ORDERS\12\Hajiani\12cv177\msjtwt.wpd
-2-
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits submitted by the parties show that no genuine issue of material fact exists
and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The court should view the evidence and any inferences that may be drawn in the light
most favorable to the nonmovant. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59
(1970). The party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds that show
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323-24 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, who must go beyond
the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material
fact does exist. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
III. Discussion
The FLSA generally requires employers to compensate employees one and onehalf times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a); Birdwell v. City of Gasden, Ala., 970 F.2d 802 (11th Cir.
1992). Section 207, which deals with overtime, applies to employees 1) “engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” (“individual coverage”) or 2)
“employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce” (“enterprise coverage”). FLSA enterprise coverage has been triggered
T:\ORDERS\12\Hajiani\12cv177\msjtwt.wpd
-3-
here.
An “‘[e]nterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce’ means an enterprise that has employees engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or
otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for
commerce by any person; and is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales
made or business done is not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail
level that are separately stated).” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A). The Defendant has
conceded that the second prong of the enterprise coverage test has been satisfied, with
gross annual sales in excess of $500,000. (Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s First Interrogatory,
at 7.)
Hajiani worked in a gas station/convenience store that handled goods (including
gasoline) produced out of state and sold to persons traveling between the states.
Gasoline is used in and for interstate commerce, and the FLSA applies to gas station
employees. See Kinzer v. Stelling, No. 6:11-CV-465, 2012 WL 1405694, at *3-*4
(M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2012) (reasoning that “the legislative history shows that gas
service station employees were engaged in commerce and were meant to be covered
under the FLSA” after discussing the past exemption that gas stations enjoyed from
the FLSA which had since been repealed); Brennan v. Ventimiglia, 356 F. Supp. 281,
T:\ORDERS\12\Hajiani\12cv177\msjtwt.wpd
-4-
282-83 (N.D. Ohio 1973) (finding that employees who sold products such as gasoline
were engaged in commerce under the FLSA because “the products sold for
automobiles would be those which would be expected to move in commerce.”).
Hajiani states that the store sold many other items made out of state including tobacco,
alcohol, food, magazines, and lottery tickets for multi-state lotteries. (Hajiani Aff. ¶¶
9-10.) He also states that the store utilized interstate lines of communication relating
to telephone and credit card processing, and verifying checks from out of state
accounts. (Hajiani Aff. ¶¶ 5, 11.) Next Level Fuel engaged in “commerce,” as it
engaged in or facilitated transportation and communication between Georgia and other
states. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(b) (“‘Commerce’ means trade commerce, transportation,
transmission, or communication among the several States or between any State and
any place outside thereof.”). Next Level Fuel engaged in “production of goods for
commerce” as well, as it handled gasoline. “Produc[tion]” has a very broad meaning
as defined by the FLSA, and “means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in
any other manner worked on in any State.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(j). Therefore, the Court
holds that Hajiani is covered under the FLSA by enterprise coverage.
T:\ORDERS\12\Hajiani\12cv177\msjtwt.wpd
-5-
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 24].
SO ORDERED, this 14 day of June, 2013.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
T:\ORDERS\12\Hajiani\12cv177\msjtwt.wpd
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?