ABDELAZIZ SOUILES v. UNIFIED CUP STOP, INC. & Another.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 23-P-1489
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1489

ABDELAZIZ SOUILES

vs.

UNIFIED CUP STOP, INC. & another.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendants, Unified Cup Stop, Inc. (Unified) and Khalid

Qasim, appeal from a Superior Court judgment entered in favor of

their former employee, Abdelaziz Souiles, on his claim of unpaid

overtime compensation under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act

(FLSA). We affirm.

Background. Unified is a gas station and convenience store

owned by Qasim. From March 2010 to December 2016, Souiles

worked at Unified for sixty hours per week. Souiles worked at

Unified for about seven hours every day six days per week. When

Souiles began working at Unified, he was paid $10 per hour for a

total of $600 per week. Souiles received incremental hourly

1 Khalid Qasim, also known as Khalid Banizugireh. rate increases every year and always received his regular hourly

rate for the hours he worked. On several occasions, Souiles met

with Qasim to inform him that he was entitled to one and one-

half times his regular hourly rate for the twenty hours of

overtime he worked every week. Qasim responded that he did not

pay overtime because United was a small gas station. Qasim

testified that he calculated Souiles' hourly wage to include the

overtime rate.

Souiles worked with one other employee between forty and

forty-five hours each week. Souiles' duties included receiving

payments from customers, accepting deliveries from vendors,

cleaning the store and restrooms, stocking shelves, and

maintaining the area outside of the gas station. Souiles did

not supervise any employees. Qasim sometimes instructed Souiles

to direct part-time employees to complete tasks. Souiles did

not participate in the hiring process and did not have the

authority to discipline employees. Souiles also did not

participate in employee evaluation or onboarding, and he did not

have the authority give raises to other employees. Souiles did

not create work schedules nor was he authorized to send

employees home when the store was not busy. At Qasim's

direction, Souiles sometimes drafted corrective action forms for

employees.

2 In June 2023, after a jury-waived trial, the judge returned

answers to special questions pursuant to Superior Court Rules

20(2)(h) and 20(8). The judge found that the defendants failed

to pay Souiles at a rate of at least one and one-half times his

regularly hourly rate for the hours he worked over forty each

week. The judge also found that Souiles was not an "exempt"

administrative employee under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). Judgment

entered for Souiles in the amount of $39,668.65, consisting of

$22,556 in damages and $17,112.65 in prejudgment interest. In

September 2023, a judge awarded the plaintiff an additional

$27,276.82 for attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to 29

U.S.C. § 216(b).

Discussion. The defendants contend that the evidence did

not support a finding that they violated the FLSA because the

administrative exemption applied to Souiles.2 We review the

judge's decision "to determine whether anywhere in the evidence,

from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances

could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn

in favor of the [prevailing party]" (quotations and citation

omitted). K&K Dev., Inc. v. Andrews, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 338,

2 For the first time on appeal, the defendants assert that the FLSA's executive exemption also applied to Souiles. At trial, when the judge asked whether the defendants were "proceeding solely on the administrative exemption," counsel responded "[Souiles] was certainly not an executive, but he was an administrator." Thus, this argument was waived.

3 344 (2023). The FLSA requires employers to compensate employees

at one and one-half times their regular hourly wage for hours

the employees work in excess of forty hours in a given week.

See Casseus v. Eastern Bus Co., 478 Mass. 786, 788 (2018); 29

U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

The FLSA exempts employers from paying overtime rates to

employees employed in "administrative" capacities. 29 U.S.C.

§ 213(a)(1). "The employer in an FLSA case bears the burden of

establishing that its employees are exempt, and . . . exemptions

are to be narrowly construed against the employers seeking to

assert them" (citation omitted). De Jesus-Rentas v. Baxter

Pharmacy Servs. Corp., 400 F.3d 72, 74 (1st Cir. 2005). An

employee employed in an "administrative capacity" is one whose

primary duties include (1) "the performance of office or non-

manual work directly related to the management or general

business operations of the employer or the employer's customers"

and (2) "the exercise of discretion and independent judgment

with respect to matters of significance." 29 C.F.R.

§ 541.200(a) (2019). Matters of significance include, but are

not limited to, "authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or

implement management policies or operating practices" and

"authority to waive or deviate from established policies and

procedures without prior approval." 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(b)

(2004).

4 Here, Souiles' duties were limited to the performance of

manual work, as directed by Qasim. Souiles' duties consisted of

a narrow set of tasks, including taking payments from customers,

cleaning, and stocking shelves. Under Qasim's instruction,

Souiles sometimes directed other employees to complete certain

tasks outlined by Qasim. Souiles did not exercise independent

judgment as it related to hiring, scheduling, discipline, or any

other matter of significance. Thus, the judge properly

determined that the FLSA's administrative exemption did not

apply to Souiles. Nor did the judge err by finding that the

defendants paid Souiles straight salary for his sixty hours of

work per week. There was nothing unreasonable in drawing the

inference that the defendants violated the FLSA by failing to

pay Souiles overtime for hours he worked in excess of forty

hours per week.

Because Souiles prevailed on his claim for unpaid overtime

compensation, he was entitled to the award of attorney's fees

and costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Souiles' request for

appellate fees and costs is also allowed. See id. Consistent

with the requirements of Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11

(2004), Souiles may file a request for attorney's fees and

costs, along with supporting documentation, within fourteen days

5 of the issuance of this decision. The defendants shall have

fourteen days thereafter within which to respond.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin, Hand & Brennan, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: December 12, 2024.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.