Case ID: f-appx_688/html/0830-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Orlando ESTRADA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FTS USA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-17159 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (May 30, 2017)
    Harold L. Lichten, Matthew Thomson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC, Boston, MA, Karl David Kelly, Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Colin D. Dougherty, Jonathan D. Christ-man, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Blue Bell, PA, Susanne Mary Calabrese, Dori Katrine Stibolt, Fox Rothschild, LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Orlando Estrada appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer, FTS USA, on his unpaid overtime claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error.

An employee bringing an FLSA claim for unpaid overtime wages initially bears “the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated.” Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299, 1315 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-87, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946)). When an employer has failed to keep records or the records cannot be trusted, this burden of proving work without proper compensation is “relaxed.” See id. Under such circumstances, an employee satisfies his burden “if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated” and he “produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 328 U.S. at 687-88, 66 S.Ct. at 1192).

Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Estrada and applying the relaxed burden for proving work performed without proper compensation, Estrada’s claim fails as a matter of law. Estrada offers only vague and contradictory assertions regarding the work for which he was allegedly not paid, and those assertions cannot support “just and reasonable inference[s]” about the nature or extent of that work. See id. Estrada has not created a genuine issue of material fact about whether he performed work for which he was not paid.

AFFIRMED.