it may please the court this is an f of a over time damages case support is aware my client has claimed that he was a non exempt employee and worked on compensated overtime hours our appeal to this court is based on a number of errors we believe that was  regards to my playing to regard to my client obligation hope without specific dates worked or specific hours worked holloway has failed the plaintiff to provide evidence overtime hours worked in violation of the f l is a it is our position and believe that the simoneau case in this on this issue and lay out both parties burdens and responsibilities here we believe it is not high that is well established and there is no conflict in the law now in this jurisdiction but  our brief if it were to be otherwise because the statute of limitations three years if you could show willful where there are no records if the plaintiff had to remember based on memory the specific goes back three years if we were able to show willful would have to remember back to october or from time of both the october twenty first to twenty six how many specific hours that he worked clinton's and i wouldn't foundation the supreme court in its circus that we're in this situation where the employer has failed to provide time accurate time keeping records administrative person and there for example and so there's some logic to why they would not keep records because they didn't think that they were covered by the act so there we get to hear your client in the reliant standard terminated because he sent correspondence to mantra in an email saying we're tired of all this overtime we're working without getting paid that's in the record he said we court in this court has specifically said it would be a perversion of fundamental principles of justice to dismiss the plaintiff because he does not have precise damages and the court said that would be the case because why would we let the employer off the hook when it's the employer's obligation to have the damages and so the court basically said the employer does not have standing to come before the  basically you have no damages because you can provide to miscarry peer which means your case will be dismissed the district court said because you didn't produce any of this discovery damage information during discovery i'm not going to allow you to prevent really work the same hours week to week some weeks they may work it total eight hours and other weeks they might work a quote he's quoting the judges quoting the defendant mantra quote some weeks they might oral argument satisfied their relaxed standards in particular played of carmody testified that he averaged an average of four hours of flex time for a week and that's what he was seeking an average it was in the record over time is earned or not earned in each individual week in carmody there was no specific dates and specific times it was not tied to a schedule also in carmody the officer said their schedule the employees records are inaccurate or inadequate and and the employee cannot offer convincing substitutes the relaxed vander plaats in courts are struggling but they've glossed over that convincing substitute work week basis in today's day and age i would suggest to the court that point of skin show darn near a convincing substitute in this case in particular we have travel records we have an outlook calendar we have utilization reports showing days in the field and days we're working at home we have a white space software which is basically a  package showing where they're at what they're doing we have the plane of own expense reports travel records plane tickets trains mileage meals they all have date stamps and time stamps on other expenses parking when did you get when you leave the airport when did you get to the er we have payroll and p t o records what weeks was it was it a holiday fall when did we take two days of have client reports sales force reports when you were you doing this administrative work was it on the weekend or was it on a monday when you were at home waiting for your next assignment in this case deposition yes in his deposition twice he did look at the documents did make an effort was given the opportunity yes we did give an opportunity and he said no no no let's turn it on its head let's look at this case from another direction we've got attachment a in a crucial piece not attachment a for purposes of today is the sixty hours sixty hours every week ok without looking at any  if that is sufficient a plaintiff can file a case claim there misclassified have an hour meeting at their lawyers office word stipulated he drafted this come up with the sixty hours and shift the burden to the fent to prove a there is an exemption it applies and b that all of damages are hard or not there you completely shift the balance in in these cases and in appropriately this case you could have somebody completely fabricate sixty hours a week they walk into their lawyers office have to file a complaint say on the hardest working guy in show business i don't work sixty hours every week and we shift the burden the rest of the holloway does to put down the specific time he worked overtime each week yes and support it the pound clemens case indicates mr jones told magistrate judge mariner's that he has to rely upon the best evidence in in the supreme court said it's gotta be the best evans and that's going to be a case by case basis because not the same evidence is not going to be available in each case but in this case monday through wednesday you really claim you work sixty hours thursday through sunday without any support the evidence is here you've got to come up with it each week and that's what the court this court said in carmody mr forty five or seventy five in the spreadsheet that satisfies the bird and that's just not appropriate that that cannot be the relaxed standard especially in today's day and age when there is so much technology in fact there's a department of labor free app that employees can download on to their phones or computers to track the time that english and spanish has been out for three or four years that evidence can be created and preserved in this case there was all kinds of evidence where you could look through in back track your schedule these folks are on computers all the time it can be recreated to specific minute maybe not but within an hour or two which we and he found correctly in our view that he didn't do so because the testimony in the statements vary wildly they didn't add up and he bordered on incredible it's just not believable when somebody says my work fluctuated each week and it varied but i work sixty hours each week it's just not credible if your honor doesn't have any more oh my time is up ok thank you very much thank you god i give years to up your time not the penalize the employee by denying him any recovery as far as the business records your honor defendant mansard there were business records there weren't records for keeping the finance management  none record keeping documents but their argument we're supposed to take business record that has nothing to do with time keeping that the minute by minute management and figure out the holloways over time the