findings will because be the credibility findings were actually i mean this was a fair and add it was also not consistent for reasons that i still cannot completely comprehend this was authenticated as a business record mid to say it even started testifying about it without even being asked improve more documentation regarding team member performance or attention to quality and production more involvement with guest experience it is a document that clearly course of this business right all right it's on clear she says then she says yes so the question begins with not i'm not sure what to little ambiguous an unclear question and then go ahead  you know the foundational questions in tears on the s and i guess you're referring to a cross examination question and as you mentioned it was a really ambiguous but that wasn't even the rationale employment it was issued by someone who is he's deceased mr government employed there for four years prior to valuation and one year after the evaluation and he was never given another written  two thousand and fifteen and so there was no opportunity to cross examine him and this e mail was actually not admitted in judge ross's summary judgment decision she decided not to admit this email because of those reasons that it was anyway rushing to decide well you know yes and everything and all of these documents were submitted in support of some a judge a motion which was the nod to the actual job description when i took that positions i asked so many questions regarding his job is i believe the only union hotel where they might have been where you know it's held down in orlando florida and this job description in the he didn't know who who drafted it was not in the plaintiff's personnel file  testified that it was never given to him and it was never used as a basis to tell him what his job to do you actually were and no one none of these witnesses actually tried to figure out who you know what he did on a da basis to decide whether or not he was exempt and the job description was a generic document and it was admitted through through the proceedings and it was also admitted that a lot of this job description was not clickable to this particular position what about particular hotel you respond to the point that if indeed he had been doing union work union members word of object was the i took the testimony pretrial and trial testimony of two cooks that worked with him on a  daily basis and these cooks testified that he was doing union work day in and day out you see the kitchen was very segmented and the guy that came in at eight o'clock in the morning he would only work on during the lunch  lunch for the for the employees and there was only one brecht's cook who didn't testify at a deposition or at trial who missed i'll grab would work with and he would do the buffet with the breakfast cook and he  made their job a lot easier so why object he was you know he was the filling guy he was the guy who was designated as as a nonunion employees that they can make work between eighty and one hundred hours a week and everyone else only has to work seven hours and as soon as their shift is over you know they leave and they get paid you know time and a half for you know after after working seven hours a day in a style grab and nearly got paid no overtime credit her credibility determinations are also to be reviewed for clear error and prior to trial the five witnesses i put on the stand for representing the defendants i took their testimony and i prepared my cross examination and outlines based on all the admissions that i felt helped the plaintiff's case and when i put them on the stand they repeatedly changed their testimony or can really forgot what they testified to in the two people that worked with him on a da basis i took their test their deposition testimony less than two months before trial and all the sudden their testimony is different and i had to repeatedly impeach these witnesses and judge ross or everyone in the courtroom so it's even you know even the because he was honest he had nothing to hide she also saw that he was an educated he spoke broken english and he was a person with lit with limited capabilities who just worked very very hard and worked eight thousand two hundred hours a week no one throughout this whole process through through depositions or trial defendant never made any attempt at all to attack the hours that he said that he worked and the witness and defendant witnesses actually helped the the  amount of hours that he worked the morning guys came in by eight o'clock and he said mr graham was usually there the the guy who the evening cook left at eleven or eleven thirty pm and said that mr graham was usually there at that time fourteen hours a day so she was very conservative in her approximation and because there's no time records you know if the court is allowed to do an approximation now when you look at her findings of fact and cannot meet its heavy burden and prove that the exemption was a political she went through all the d l l factors and analyzed the each factor and found that just about all the factors were in favor of the plaintiff or there was a tie  novo but she correctly applied the law like like every other district judge in the in the southern us to dish would do when it comes to the executive exemption with regard to damages the damages calculation has to be reviewed for  translated from the evidence you know i try it was a mathematical formula that we do in all of our cases we submitted them just chart pre pre trial and post trial based on the actual evidence that's it's routinely done this way has a burden to show that acting in good faith and with objective reasonable grounds in believing that the f s a was not violated when i took the deposition testimony and and also this testimony was a deuced at trial that they just gave him a job description no one no one went to see what he did and day to day basis whether or not that fell within the the f l say on your claim of all executive exemption  one no one no one knew really what he did each day except for the two cooks and the two cooks really you know they work by themselves most of the time i mean they're there they're ok so their testimony be should be kept in intact because you know it's clear that there was no good faith here that that mr one of the witnesses testified that the only reason why he was exempt because i i don't necessarily agree that nobody knew but he does make a good point and the point is that mr rob was a manager he had discretion to do what needed to be done he didn't addiction nobody knew what he was doing on a day to day basis as because he was the manager he didn't have that lever site and that is one of the key points of the executive exemption  nice to be highlighting he said that food presentation at this restaurant not for now i understand that a lot of people in the legal profession  have not had not worked in the restaurant industry but ever we've all eaten at a restaurant this restaurants or steak it's salmon pasta there is no restaurant even the mcdonald's that