Espinosa v. Pure Air Filtration, LLC

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's state law claims and any FLSA overtime claims prior to 9/17/11 are dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/5/15. (dr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
YSAIAS ESPINOSA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:14-CV-2993-TWT

PURE AIR FILTRATION, LLC,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

This is an action to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. It is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 37], which is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. Background
The Plaintiff, Ysaias Espinosa, started working for the Defendant, Pure Air
Filtration, LLC, on March 25, 2010.1 His job was to pour material into a hopper and
assemble cardboard boxes as needed.2 Initially, the Plaintiff’s hourly rate was $10.3

1

Def.’s Statement of Facts ¶ 11.

2

Id. ¶ 31.

3

Id. ¶ 29.

T:\ORDERS\14\Espinosa\msjtwt.wpd

It was increased to $11 an hour in May of 2013.4 The Plaintiff ceased working for the
Defendant at some point in the middle of July 2014.5 The Defendant’s business is
generally open from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., but employees often arrive earlier or stay
later.6 Employees also work on Saturdays.7 To keep track of payroll records, the
Defendant uses the computer program Quickbooks.8 The Defendant also uses time
cards for non-salaried employees.9 After the time cards are entered into Quickbooks,
the Defendant disposes of them.10 The Defendant does not keep any other time
records.11 Before the Defendant implemented the time card system, one of the
Defendant’s employees, Randall Couch, kept time records on a pad of paper.12 The
Defendant no longer has those records.13

4

Id. ¶ 30.

5

Id. ¶ 8.

6

Pl.’s Statement of Add’l Facts ¶ 1.

7

Id. ¶ 2.

8

Id. ¶¶ 8-10.

9

Id. ¶ 11.

10

Id. ¶ 12.

11

Id. ¶ 13.

12

Id. ¶ 27.

13

Id.

T:\ORDERS\14\Espinosa\msjtwt.wpd

-2-

The Defendant’s employees have worked more than forty hours in a single
week.14 In fact, the Defendant’s typical work schedule is eight and one half hours per
day, leading to two and a half hours of overtime per week if an employee works a full
schedule.15 The Plaintiff was a temporary worker who was paid in cash.16 The
Defendant admits that the Plaintiff was not paid the overtime premium rate for hours
that he worked overtime.17 Although neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant has
complete time records, the Plaintiff has produced one time card indicating that he
worked 45.35 hours the week of June 30, 2012, to July 6, 2012.18 The Plaintiff brings
claims under the FLSA and state law for unpaid overtime. The Defendant now moves
for summary judgment.
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits submitted by the parties show no genuine issue of material fact exists and

14

Id. ¶ 14.

15

Couch Dep., at 27.

16

Pl.’s Statement of Add’l Facts ¶¶ 49-50.

17

Id. ¶ 22.

18

Espinosa Dep., at Ex. 1.

T:\ORDERS\14\Espinosa\msjtwt.wpd

-3-

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.19 The court should view the
evidence and any inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant.20 The party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds to
show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.21 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.22 “A mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence
supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be a sufficient
showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.”23
III. Discussion
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) provides that employers must pay
overtime pay at one and one half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of
forty per week.24 To survive summary judgment on a claim for unpaid overtime, a

19

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).

20

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970).

21

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

22

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).

23

Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990).

24

29 U.S.C. § 207.

T:\ORDERS\14\Espinosa\msjtwt.wpd

-4-

plaintiff must prove that he worked overtime without compensation.25 Where the
employer fails to keep proper and accurate records and the employee cannot offer
convincing substitutes, however, the employee should not be penalized for the
employer’s failure.26 Instead, the “employee has carried out his burden if he proves
that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if
he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a
matter of just and reasonable inference.”27 At that point, the burden is on the employer
to “bring forth either evidence of the precise amount of work performed or evidence
to negate the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s
evidence.”28
The Plaintiff here has produced one time card indicating that he worked 45.35
hours the week of June 30, 2012, to July 6, 2012.29 Even if the Plaintiff had not
produced that time card, one of the Defendant’s supervising employees testified at his

25

Allen v. Board of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cnty., 495 F. 3d 1306, 1315 (11th

Cir. 2007).
26

Id. at 1315-16.

27

Id. at 1316 (quoting Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680,

687 (1946)).
28

Id.

29

Espinosa Dep., at Ex. 1.

T:\ORDERS\14\Espinosa\msjtwt.wpd

-5-

deposition that the work schedule includes half an hour of overtime per day, equating
to two and a half hours of overtime per week.30 It is undisputed that the Defendant did
not keep the majority of the Plaintiff’s time cards. Although the Defendant has
produced a time card that does not show overtime,31 it has not presented any evidence
contradicting the reasonableness of the time card offered by the Plaintiff nor to
contradict its own employee’s testimony that the schedule involved overtime. There
is therefore a genuine issue of material fact regarding the number of overtime hours
for which the Plaintiff was not compensated. The Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on the Plaintiff’s FLSA overtime claim should be denied as to claims arising
on September 17, 2011, or later.
The Defendant also moves for summary judgment on any claims for unpaid
overtime incurred prior to September 17, 2011, as barred by the statute of limitations.
The Plaintiff admits that those claims are barred.32 The Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment based on the statute of limitations should therefore be granted as
to overtime prior to September 17, 2011. Additionally, the Defendant moves for
summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s state law claims for quantum meruit and unjust

30

Couch Dep., at 27.

31

Espinosa Dep., at Ex. 2.

32

Pl.’s Br. in Opp’n of Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., at 13.

T:\ORDERS\14\Espinosa\msjtwt.wpd

-6-

enrichment because the FLSA preempts those claims. The Plaintiff also admits that
the state law claims are preempted.33 The Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
on those claims should be granted.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 37] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Plaintiff’s state law claims
and any FLSA overtime claims prior to September 17, 2011, are dismissed.
SO ORDERED, this 5 day of October, 2015.

/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge

33

Id.

T:\ORDERS\14\Espinosa\msjtwt.wpd

-7-