Heather Clark v. Williamson County

Fifth Circuit

Heather Clark v. Williamson County

538 F. App'x 579

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 16, 2013

Docket12-50561

StatusUnpublished

This text of 538 F. App'x 579 (Heather Clark v. Williamson County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heather Clark v. Williamson County, 538 F. App'x 579 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

This action for unpaid wages involves a dispute over the implementation of the Fluctuating Workweek (“FWW”) method for calculating overtime pay. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.114. Named plaintiffs Heather Clark, David Claxton, David Compton, and 112 other paramedics (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued their employer, Williamson County (“the County”), alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., by fail *580 ing to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for overtime hours. The district court entered summary judgment for the County, adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concluding that the County’s payment scheme complied with the FLSA under the FWW method. Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal and contend that the County’s compensation system was not a valid FWW system.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Rentech Steel LLC, 620 F.3d 558, 562 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Canal Indem. Co., 352 F.3d 254, 259-60 (5th Cir.2003)). Plaintiffs “bear[ ] the burden of proving that the [County] failed to properly administer the FWW method.” Samson v. Apollo Res., Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 636 (5th Cir.2001) (citing Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc., 2 F.Supp.2d 884, 896 (E.D.Tex.1997)). The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiffs could not meet this burden. The district court agreed with this decision, concluding that the magistrate judge’s “application of the law and legal analysis in support of his conclusions [was] sufficient and appropriate.” We agree. After reviewing the briefs and relevant law, examining pertinent portions of the record, and hearing oral argument, we conclude that the County is entitled to summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

This action for unpaid wages involves a dispute over the implementation of the Fluctuating Workweek (“FWW”) method for calculating overtime pay. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.114. Named plaintiffs Heather Clark, David Claxton, David Compton, and 112 other paramedics (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued their employer, Williamson County (“the County”), alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., by fail *580 ing to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for overtime hours. The district court entered summary judgment for the County, adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concluding that the County’s payment scheme complied with the FLSA under the FWW method. Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal and contend that the County’s compensation system was not a valid FWW system.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Rentech Steel LLC, 620 F.3d 558, 562 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Canal Indem. Co., 352 F.3d 254, 259-60 (5th Cir.2003)). Plaintiffs “bear[ ] the burden of proving that the [County] failed to properly administer the FWW method.” Samson v. Apollo Res., Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 636 (5th Cir.2001) (citing Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc., 2 F.Supp.2d 884, 896 (E.D.Tex.1997)). The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiffs could not meet this burden. The district court agreed with this decision, concluding that the magistrate judge’s “application of the law and legal analysis in support of his conclusions [was] sufficient and appropriate.” We agree. After reviewing the briefs and relevant law, examining pertinent portions of the record, and hearing oral argument, we conclude that the County is entitled to summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 F. App'x 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heather-clark-v-williamson-county-ca5-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack