Melgar Morataya v. Nancy's Kitchen of Silver Spring, Inc. et al

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/20/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
U.S. DIS TRICr COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES ()JSTRICT COD!R1HiCr OF HARYLAlW
FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND

CLERK'S OFFIC~~

*
.JESSICA MARLENE
MORATAYA,

AT Ci\~::: :ECLi

MELGAR
RY

*

Plaintiff,

A q: 52

ZOlb HAY 20

SO/llhemDiI'isioll

._.~

;- f

j,:-":

*
Case Nil.: G.JH-I3-01888

v.
*
NANCY'S KITCHEN OF SILVER
SPRING, INC., et aI.,

*

Dcfendan ts.

*

*

*

*
*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Plaintifl: Jessica Marlene Melgar Morataya
against Defendants

Nancy's

"Defendants")

("Plaintiff'

for purported

("FLSA").

~ 201 el seq" the Maryland

*

or "Morataya").

violations

Kitchen")

I

on

in favor of the

in the amount of $66.571.18.

BACKGROUND

and amended

her Complaint

on July 1.2013.

for summary judgment.

1 Defendant's

dismissed

Act

Md. Code.

A two-day bench trial \\as conducted

Plaintiff initiated this aetion with the tiling of a Complaint

motions

and Roy G.

Wage Payment and Collection

October 26 and 27. 2015. For the reasons that follow. the Court enters judgment

I.

filed this lawsuit

Wage and Hour Law ("MWIIL").

Law (ooMWPCL"). Md. Code. LE ~ 3-501 el seq.

*

of the Fair Labor Standards

Lab. & EmpJ. Article (OoLE") ~ 3-401 el seq" and the Maryland

Plaintiff and awards damages

*

OPINION

Kitchen of Silver Spring. Inc. ("Nancy's

Barreto (collectively.
29 V.S.c.

*

*

wife. Yanda

L. Barreto.

lOCI' NO.4. The Court has previously

which narrowed

was also included

from the actioll by the COllrt. ECF No. ~~.

on June 27. 2013. lOCI' No. I.

the issues fiJI' trial. In its January

as a defendant

in the initial Complaint

ruled on two
12.2015

but was later

*

Memorandum Opinion. thc Court ruled that: Dcfcndant Yanda L. Barrcto was not Plaintiffs
employer and was thus dismissed Irom the case as a defcndant: Nancy's Kitchen was propcrly
classified as an cnterprise cngagcd in commerce in 2012 and 2013 fiJr purposes ofthc FLSA:
Defendants werc not cntitlcd to a ..tip credit" as an offset against thcir minimum wage and
overtime obligations under the FLSA; and. Roy Barreto was Plaintilrs cmploycr. ECF No. 44.
The Court's July 7, 2015 Mcmorandulll Opinion furthcr narrowed thc ..tip crcdit". issue and
found that Defcndants' paymcnt methods. including the weekly cash paymcnts. violated thc
FLSA's minimum wage rcquircmcnts f())"
tipped cmployees and that Dcfcndants arc. therefore.
responsible for paying Plaintiff minimum. and potentially. ovcrtimc wagcs. ECF No. 56. The
following issues werc leli to be rcsolved at trial: (I) thc number of hours workcd by Plaintiff
during the relcvant periods and thc amount of wages paid by Defendants for thc hours worked
during those pcriods; (2) whcthcr Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damagcs under 29 lJ.S.c. ~
216(b); and, (3) whcther Plainti ITis cntitled to cnhanccd damages undcr Md. Codc Ann .. Empl.
Art., ~ 3-507.I(b). The tirst issue is a fact-bascd determination and thus will be primarily
addressed in the Court's Findings of Fact. The sccond and third issues require both fact-linding
and conclusions oflaw and will bc primarily addresscd in thc Court's Conclusions of Law.
II.

FINDINGS

OF FACT

The Court heard testimony li'Oln both I'lainitff Moralaya and Dcfendant Barreto.
Defendants called two additional witnesscs: Angelo Gonsalves. who prcscntcd inl<mnation in
chart

1'01111

that had becn provided to him by Barrcto: and John Fernandes. a wailcr at Nancy's

Kitchcn. who at the time of trial. remaincd employcd by Barrcto. Although the rcspectivc
tcstimonics of Gonsalves and Fernandes were helpful to the Court. thc corc issucs are I<llllldin
the disputes between the testimony of Morataya and Barrclo.

Morataya testified that shc began employment at Naney's Kitchen on October

n. 2007

and worked there until July 7. 2013. She began as a busser before becoming a waitress on March
12.2011. As a busscr. she was paid $7.25 per hour. She testilied that. as a busser. she \\mkcd
between 58-64 hours per week. spread out over 6 or 7 days per wcek. but was only paid li)r 40
hours per week regardless of the hours she worked. When she became a waitress in March 2011.
her hourly wage was changed to $4 per hour. Morataya was told by Barreto that she could keep
her own tips when she was the only person working on the floor but. when she \\"as not. the tips
she received were to be placed in a bag so that they could be shared between her. Fernandes. and
Barreto. She received pay envelopes once per week with cash. which constituted the weekly cash
payment for tips received: and a paycheck in an envelope every other week. which included a
mix of cash and checks for her hourly wages. The weekly cash payments for tips were paid at a
nat rate 01'$45 per day regardless of the tips actually reeeived.~ That amount was raised to $50
per day on May 2. 2012. Her hours nuctuated during her employment there. From thc time she
became a waitress on March 12. 2011 until she began going to school on May 2. 20 II. she
worked approximately 63.25 hours per week. From the time she began school until the time she
left her employment at Nancy's Kitchen on July 7. 2013. Morataya worked approximately 57
hours per week.
Barreto testified that he has operated Naney's Kitchen sinec 1998. As thc owncr. he does
scheduling. payroll. deliveries. waiting. cooking. washing. and ""\\hatever it takes to get the place
going:- He testified that he hired Morataya in 2007 and began paying her wagcs primarily in

Although Barreto (and his counsel) attempted to avoid the consequences ornn earlier ruling orthe Court by rt,.'characterizing these \veekly cash paY'lllcnts as something other than money stelllming from lhe lips camed by Nancy
Kitchen employees. the Court tinds that these payments constitute the tips that were the subject of both ECF Nos."''''
and 56. Thus. having previously found that Defendants did not comply with the requirements under FLSA for
receiving a "tip credit"" against O\\'ed wages. the Court will not permit Defendants 10 use Illest' payments as otTsets
2

against their minimum wage and overtime obligations.

,
.)

cash, at her request, in 2009. In 20 IO. hc hcgan paying her partially hy check. He denied that
Morataya's job c1assilication ever changed from busseI' to waitress or scrver. In response to
questioning from Morataya's counsel. he claimed that he did not "understand ,,'hat is a waitress
and what is a scrver." He tcstitied that evcryonc. including him. did thc same joh. Hc claimed
that it was difficult to teach Morataya how to perform new tasks hecause her English was
limited. Barreto testitied that he paid hcr $7.25 per hour in 2010 and that she was paid $8 per
hour Irom 2011-2013. He stated that reterences to $4 an hour on the pay envelopes entered into
evidence referred to a "halt:llOurly" rate because Morataya wanted to he paid half in cash and
half in check. Although. in a sworn affidavit. he previously referred to an "hourly ,,'agc" of $4
per hour and to the weekly cash payments as "tips:' at trial. he testified that thc wcekly cash
payments were part of her hourly wages leading to a total of $8 per hour. He acknowledges that
he did not have records regarding Morataya' s hours worked. other than I()r 2013. and claims that
they were originally kept on thermal paper. which faded and were eventually discarded.
Thc Court does not credit Barreto's testimony. First. Barreto testified that he paid
Morataya an hourly wage of $8 beginning in March 20 II. which would be above minimum
wage. Yet, no document. other than a chart prepared for the purposes of litigation. supported this
assertion. To thc contrary. however. the payment cnvelopes retained hy Morataya. in which she
received her wages. indicate clearly that she was being paid $4 or. at timcs. $4.15 pCI'hour. The
envelopes were filled out by Barreto's witC. who typically provided the paymcnts to the
employees. Specifically. a number of the envelopes stated the hours \\,(lrked. t()lIowed by ,,@
4.15" or •.@ 4," followed by a number that retlectcd the hours workcd multiplied by 4.15 or 4.
Other envelopes rctlect a number of hours heing suhtracted by a smaller number. which the
parties agreed was the portion of the total hours being paid by check. followed by "@4" and then

4

a number equaling the number of hours not being paid by eheck multiplied by 4. The only other
source of payment made by Nancy's Kitchen to Morataya was the weekly cash payments. which
the Court has already found was payment for tips collected and not hourly wages. Thus. not only
is Barreto's testimony regarding an $8 per hour payment not supported. it is directly reluted. The
Court finds. therefore. that Barreto was untruthful on this point and merely attempted to
reconstitute the weekly cash payment. which he had previously stated was payment lor tips. as a
part of her hourly wage. as a result of the Court's prior ruIing that those weekly cash payments
would not be allowed as an offset against wages owed because of his failure to comply with the
FLSA requirements for payment of tips.
Additionally. Ban'eto repeatedly denied that Morataya's duties ever changed significantly
from when she was hired as a busseI'. that she never assumed the role of"sen'er"

or "wailer:' and

claimed to not understand what those words meant. The Court had the opportunity to observe
Barreto's testimony and while there were times when it became apparent that therc were
limitations to his English. it is simply not credible that he did not know what these words mean.
Indeed, in his deposition testimony. he repeatedly acknowledged that Morataya was a waitress.
It is also significant that it is the DeICndants' failure to keep and maintain records for all
relevant years that requircs the Court to rely on oral testimony to establish the hours worked.
Although a limited number of payroll documents and time sheets were maintained and admitted
into evidence, most werc destroyed. An employer "has a duty to keep proper and accurate
records of the employee' s wages. hours. and other conditions and practices of employment"
McFeeley

v. Jacksol7 5/. E11Im'/. LLC. 47 F. Supp. 3d 260. 276 (D. Md. 2014) (citing /)o/7(J\'(m

Ken/wood

De\'. Co .. fnc .. 549 F. Supp. 480. 485 (D. Md. 1982)). Thus. while Plaintilr"carries

the burden of proof in an FLSA claim for overtime wages." Randolflh

5

\'. 1'00l'erCOml11COl7s/,...

1'.

[nc.,

309 F.R.D. 349. 362 (D. Md. 2015) (citingAl7<lersol1

680.68687.66

\'. MI. Clemem

['011"1)" Co ..

328 U.S.

S. Ct 1187.90 l.. Ed. 1515 (1946». the "hurden is light. especially when the

employer's records are inaccurate or inadequate:' trl.
Three witnesses. Morataya. Barreto. and Fernandes. testilicd to thcir recollection of
Morataya's schedule. They dirtered by varying degrces. These differences are not unimportant
as, for example. the difference between whether she was seheduled to begin at 7am or 8am on a
given day. multiplied over the course of multiple years. signilicantly changes the damage
calculation. As indicated. the Court docs not credit Barreto' s vcrsion of evcnts and thus will not
engage in a lengthy recitation of his recollection of her schedule. which was sometimes
internally inconsistent. Fernandes's recollection differed slightly from Morataya but the Court
finds Morataya credible and finds her to be a more rcliable source than Fernandes regarding her
own schedule.
For these reasons. the Court credits Morataya's testimony regarding her hours worked
and payments received] But even this linding leaves some uncertainty as there \vere. of course.
periods of lluctuation. Indeed. as counsel for defense pointed out in closings. the relatively lew
timesheets available to the Court show lluetuations in hours and Morataya testilied to occasional
days off. albeit few. as well as days where she worked additional hours to provide coverage for
Fernandes or Barreto. With these potential fluctuations in mind. the Court finds that Morataya
worked. on average. 62 hours per week from the date she was hired on June 27. 20 10 until she
became a waitress on March 12. 201 I; 63 hours per week hetween March 12. 20 l I and May 2.
2011 when she began school: and 57 hours per week between May 2.2011 and "hen her
employment ended on July 13.2013. The Court further tinds that she only reccived payment for

Portions of Gonsalves's summary ofpaymcllts
the Court in making its tindings.

J

made 10 Morataya arc not disputed by PlaintitTand are also used by

6

40 hours per week from June 27. 20 10 until March 12. 20 II. Finally. thc Court finds that li'om
March 12. 2011 until June 9. 2013. she was paid $4 per hour and Irom Junc 9. 2013 until July 12.
2013. she \Vas paid $4.15 per hOUL
III.

CONCLUSIONS OF LA W
A. Liability

The FI.SA requires employers to "pay to each of [their] employees. who. in any
workweek. is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods lor commerce. wages at ...
$7.25 an hour" and mandates that employers pay their employees at a rate of one and one-half
times their rcgular rate f()r hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given week. 29
206(a)( I) and 207(a)(1): Bli/ier
Md. Nov. 7.2013) ("Pursuantto
no less than lederalminimum

1'.

U.s.c. ~~

Pf'&G. /nc .. No. WMN-13-430. 2013 WI. 5964476. at *6 (D.

the FI.SA. an employcr must pay an employee an hourly wage

wage.'').

In addition to her FI.SA claim. PlaintilThas also brought claims undcr the MWHL and
the MWPCL. Similar to the FI.SA. the MWHI. "requires that employers pay the applicable
minimum wage to their cmployees and. in [~~ 3-415 and 3-420 of the Labor and Employmcnt
Article]. that they pay an overtime wagc of at least 1.5 times the usual hourly wage" for each
hour worked in cxcess of forty hours pcr week. JlcFeeley. 47 F. Supp. 3d at 275 (quoting Friolo
I'.

Frankel, 373 Md. 501. 513. 819 A.2d 354 (2003» (internal quotation marks omilled).While

thc MWHL provides a minimum wagc standard. the MWPCL rcquircs an employer to rcgularly
pay its employees while employed and at the termination of employment. LE ~ 3-402. 3-502. 35.5. "Read together. thcse statutes allow cmployees to recover unlawfully withheld wages II'om
their employer. and provide an employcc with two m'enucs to do so." Peters \'. Earzl' lIealthcar~
Giver. /nc .. 439 Md. 646. 653. 97 AJd 621. 625 (2014) (citing Ballaglia \'. Clinical

7

Pe,jusiollis/s. Inc .. 338 Md. 352, 364. 658 A.2d 680. 686 (1985». Additionally. the Maryland
Court of Appeals has determined that an employee is entitled to sue under both statutes to
recover withheld overtime wages. id at 654 ("[B]oth the [MJWHL and the [M]WPCL are
vehicles for recovering overtime wages:'). however. at all timcs rclevant to this litigation. the
MWHL exempted restaurants from its overtime provisions. Gilmji-iddo \'. link. 769 F. Supp. 2d
880,895 (D. Md. 201 1).~
Based on the above lindings of fact. the Court concludes as a matter of law that
Defendants violated the MI IWL by its failure to pay minimum (or any) wages to Morataya
beyond the 40 hours per week paid to her from June 27. 2010 untill'vlareh 12.2011 and by
paying $4 per hour and then $4.15 per hour ti'OITI arch 13.2011 through July 13.20 J 3. The
M
Court additionally concludes as a matter of law that the Defendants violated the FLSA by not
paying minimum and overtime wages from January J. 2012 through July 13.2013.; Stillleti for
the Court's determination is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages under the
FLSA and enhanced damages under state law.
B. Damages
I. Liquidated Damages Under the FLSA
Pursuant to the FLSA. an employer who violates minimum wage or overtime
requirements "shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their
unpaid minimum wages. or their unpaid overtime compensation. as the case may be. and in an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages:' 29 U.S.c. ~ 216(b). "Liquidated damages arc

4The

restaurant exemption was eliminated
Ch. 262 (H.B. 295); L.E. ~ 3-~ 15.

in the Maryland Minimum Wage Act of20 14. See 2014 Maryland Laws

SBecause Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the Defendant earned in excess ofS500.000.00 in gross annual receipts
in 2011, as required to state a FLSA claim. she is not entitled to recover under the FLSA forthat year. See 29 U.S.c.
S 203(5)( t )(A).

8

not seen as punitive, but as compensation for damagcs othcrwise .too obscure and difficult of
proof,''' Rogers \'. Sal'. First MOr/g..

u.c. 362 F. Supp. 2d 624. 637 (D. Md. 2005)

(citing

Sal'. Bank1'. () 'Neil. 324 U.S. 697. 70708. 65 S. Ct. 895. 89 L. Ed. 1296 (1945). Courts

Brooklyn

have routinely held that there is a presumption in f~l\'orof an award of Iiquidated damages when
it is determined that the employer has violated the FLSA. !d.: seC' also I.an~a

1'.

SlIgarlaml

Rlln

HomeownC'l's Assoc .. Inc .. 97 F. Supp. 2d. 737. 739n.9 (E.D. Va. 20(0).

Nonetheless. there are circumstances where liquidated damages are not appropriate:
If the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission
giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for
believing ihat his act or omission was not a violation of the [FLSAj the court may.
in its sound discretion. award no liquidated damages or award any amount thereof
not to exceed the amount specified in [29 U.s.c. ~ 216(b)].
Rogers, 362 F. Supp. 2d at 63738. An employer found liable under the FLSA has the "plain and

substantial burden of persuading the court by proof that his I~\ilureto obey the statute was both in
good faith and predicated upon such reasonable grounds that it wmild be unf~lirto impose upon
him more than a compensatory verdict." Wright \'. Carrigg. 275 F.2d 448. 449 (4th Cir. 1960).
This burden "is a difficult one to meet ... and double damages arc the norm. single damagcs the
exception," Reich \'. S. New Eng. TC'IC'cOIIIIIIS.
Corp .. 1:21F.3d 58. 71 (2d Cir. 1997) (citation
omitted).
Defendants arguc that Barreto's paymcnt of the wcekly cash payments to Morataya
demonstrates that he was making an emm. even if improper. at paying hcr minimum wage. They
additionally argue that because Barreto told Gonsalves. a ccrtitied CPA. about his payment
methods and was not corrccted. that good faith applies. These arguments I~lil.Courts havc bcen
consistent in finding that ignorance of the requirements of the FLSA docs not constitutc good
faith. Reeves

1'. /111 '/

TC'!.& Tel .. Co. 616 F.2d 1342. 1353 (5th Cir. 1980). cm.

9

dC'nied. 449 U.S.

1077. 101 S. Ct. 857.66 L. Ed. 2d 800 (1981): Williams \'. .lId. Office ReloWlors. HC. 485 F.
Supp. 2d 616. 620 (D. Md. 2007): Rogers \'. So\'. Firsl MOrlg. HC. 362 F. Supp. 2d 624. 638
(D. Md. 2005). Indeed. "where a question is complex or uncertain. an employer at the leastmusl
show that it made a diligent investigation into the issues and concluded not to pay overtime
based upon the results of its investigation:'

Rogers. 362 F. Supp. 2d at 638 (superseded by

statute on other grounds). There is no evidence that Defendants here made any il1\'estigation into
whether their method of payment was appropriate. Thus. they have not shown good lilith and
liquidated damages will be awarded.
2. Enhanced Damages Under State Law
Although state wage statutes allow for enhanced damages. "a trier of fact 'may not award
enhanced damages unless ittinds that the employee's wages were not withheld as a result ofa
bona tide dispute ..•• Programmers' COllSorlillm. Inc. \'. Clark. 409 Md. 548. 563. 976 A.2d 290.
299 (2009). A bona tide dispute is "a legitimate dispute over the validity of the claim or the
amount that is owing" such that the employer had a good faith basis for withholding payment.
Admiral MOrlg.. Inc. v. Cooper. 357 Md. 533. 543: 745 A.2d 1026. 1031 (2000). Although the
statute is silent on which party bears the burden of proof on this issue. the Maryland Court of
Appeals has placed the burden on the employer to prove the bona tide dispute. I'elers. 439 Md.
at 658 ("[Ilt is not difficult to conclude that the employer. as the party withholding the wages. is
uniquely qualitied to ot1er evidence about its reason for doing so:)
Nonetheless. "an employee is not presumptively entitled to enhanced damages. even if
the court finds that wages were withheld without a bona fide dispute:' Id at 661. Rather. trial
courts are simply "encouraged to consider the remedial purpose of the [M]WI'CL when deciding
whether to award enhanced damages to employees:' /d. The statute does not set a specitied

10

amount of enhanced damages but docs state that "plaintiff may be awarded an amount 'not
exceeding three times the wage ...• Marroquin\". Canales. 505 F. Supp. 2d 283. 296 (D. Md.
2007) (citing Admiral Mor/gage. Inc.. 357 Md. at 547: Peters. 439 Md. at 667 ("The total
amount of damages an employee may recover under the [M]WPCL is three times the unpaid
wage.").
The Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating a bona fide dispute. As stated
above, Defendants made no efTort to determine if their method of payment was consistent with
controlling law. Thus, for the same reasons the Court concludcd that good faith was not
demonstrated for purposes of determining liquidated damages. the Court concludes that there
was not a bona tide dispute. Although this docs not compel an award of cnhanced damages. the
Court concludes that they are warranted herc. That said. the Court is mindful of the fact that. as
even Plaintitrs

counsel conceded. in paying the weekly cash paymcnts. Dcfendants did pay

Plaintiff an amount that met or excccded what her minimum wage would have been. Although
the weekly cash payments cannot be considered lor thc purposes of applying an on~set to the
owed minimum or overtime wages. see ECF Nos. 44 and 56. the Court docs lind that. in light of
those payments received by Morataya. mercly doubling. rather than tripling. the compensatory
damage total is suflieient to serve the remcdial purpose of the statute.
3. Damage Calculations
For the thirty-seven week period between June 27. 20 I0 to March 12. 20 II. belorc
Morataya became a waitress, the Court finds that she worked 2.294 hours (62 hours per week)
but was only paid for 1.480 hours (40 hours per week). Thus. she is owed minimum wage lor
814 hours. Multiplying that figure by the $7.25 she should have recei\'ed for each hour. results in

II

$5.901.50 that Morataya is owed in compensatory damages under the MIIWL and MWCPL for
that time period.
For the seven week period I,'om March 12. 20 II through May 2. 20 I I. when she adj usted
her hours to accommodate school. Morataya worked 441 hours. For the thirty-live week period
from May 2. 2011 until Deccmber 31. 2011. she \\"Orked 1.995 hours. Thus. from May 12.2011
through December 31. 20 II. she worked 2.436 hours. Morataya conccdes she was paid $4 for
every hour worked during this period which would mean she was paid $9.744. Had she been paid
$7.25 an hour. she would have becn paid $17.661. Thus she is owed the diflercncc. $7.917.
under the MHWL and MWCPL for this time period.
For thc seventy-four week period

1"0\11

January I. 2012 to June 9. 2013. Morataya

worked 4.218 hours. At a rate of$4 per hour. she \\'as paid $16.872. For the live week period
from June 9. 2013 until.July 13.2013. when she was paid $4.15 per hour. she worked 285 hours
and was paid $1.182.75. Thus

11'0111

January I. 2012 to July 13.2013. she receiwd a total of

$18.054.75. Had she been paid $7.25 per hour. she would havc been paid $32.646.75. Thus. she
is owed the difference. $14.592. for this time period under the MIIWL. MWCI'L. and FLSJ\.
In total. Morataya is owed $28.410.50 in past due minimum wage payments. She will be
awarded an equal amount in enhanced damages under the MHWL and MWCI'L and liquidated
damages under the FLSJ\ for a total of $56.821."
For overtime under the FLSA. the Court linds that Morataya \\orked 4.503 hours from
January 1. 2012 through July 13.2013 and that anything over 3.160 constitutes overtime. The
Court has already awarded Morataya $9,736.75 fiJr minimum wage payments for those 1.343

times for the same injury. Plaintiff will receive olle payment
for each statute violated. ~(";l!/! Clol1(:\' I', S"kylil1l! Crill. 1.1.c..
No. ELH-12-1598. 2012 \VL 5409733. at *5 (D. Md. Nov. 5. 2012). tefloN and 1'(>('o1J1IJ1/!ndatiol1 til/opt!!". No. ELH12-1598.2013 WL 625344 (D. Md. Feb. 19.20 t 3) ("IAI pany may not recover 1\\ ice for one injury. even if the
party asserts multiple. consistent theories of recovery. ").

b

Because Plaintiff is not permitted to recover

under all applicable

I11Ultiple

statutes and not a separate payment

12

hours. Paid at $10.88 for those hours, her payment would be $14,611.84. She is owed the
difference, $4,875.09 in overtime compensation. Including liquidated damages. the payment
under FLSA is $9,750.18.
Total judgment for the Plaintiff is $66.571.18.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Judgement in favor of the Plaintiff is entered in the amount of

$66,571.18.
A separate Order shall issue.

Dated: May),Q 2016
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

13