this case then this court is telling employers just play dumb and you don't have to pay your employees minimum or overtime wages this craig isn't asking for anything special in this case still a little bit of common sense when you work overtime hours you record those hours on the employer's time sheets you give those time sheets to your employer for the employer's approval you've got to be paid for your overtime hours the fair labor standards act allows no other option when we talk about common sense we're talking about acting with reasonable diligence as other circuits have held employers must act with reasonable diligence when it comes to knowing whether their employees are working overtime hours she knows what the law is i mean 's her position that's her testimony but let's let's assume she does it doesn't matter well because they argue that she did know i think and that b because she had knowledge and did not submit it as time and a half that she and in effect waived her claim or i think that's what the argument is but you're saying that she did not did not know the law is there any evidence on the record on that from a couple solution or anything that there is in her deposition she testified she didn't have specific knowledge as to who is entitled to overtime wages she also testified that she only learned the good time and a half by doing other people's  other employees at bridges brothers time she was instructed by bridges brothers that these certain people union employees and one mechanic who requested overtime were to be paid overtime but you're  right you've nailed exactly what the employers argument it is she did something that way to her right to overtime and it's well established that you cannot waive your right to overtime minimum wages are liquidated damages judge kept which said that in boaz versus fed ex when we talk about reasonable diligence in this case it means actually looking at the time records the bridges brothers required mr craig to hand in for the admitted purpose of the employer keeping track of her time reasonable diligence means knowing what's on your own payroll records and bridges brothers claims it didn't know about ms craig's overtime hours but miss craig's time sheets and payroll records are bridges brothers knowledge under the fair labor standards act bridges brothers was required to keep records of her hours worked in wages paid when an employer does that when they keep accurate records an employee may easily discharge their burden to prove uncompensated hours by producing those records in anderson versus not clinton so i mean with what she did here was i mean she recorded all of her  time but she she also i guess for each employee was calculating the payment of and in calculating her payment she didn't do time and a half for her overtime hours that's correct that's on the time sheets right and and so the question is whether that somehow through the employer off here that's yet that is the question so miss craig produced those time records with her wages and her time she followed the supreme court's instructions the trial court ignored that evidence and ignored the instruction from andersen was she the employee that determined whether other employees time and again got overtime pay or was that her supervisor now her yes her boss tells her who to pay what the pay she doesn't set hours she doesn't know pay rates she just calculate she does the math that's give union employees over time we don't give nonunion employers any overtime for over forty hours i mean if you know they knew that was violating the law she wouldn't violate the law which i would think so  and if you look at the record she says toward the conclusion of her employment if you take away my assistant i'm going to have to work overtime hours and i'd like to be paid at overtime rate for that and then she gets terminated then she  terminated but that indicates she didn't know until that point she was supposed to be paid overtime when she figured it out she said yeah i'd like to be paid over time and she testified that mr bridges told her the names of the five people that were eligible for overtime that right is right and she wasn't among them does she have any legal training or anything like that no she has a high school diploma and the record says she has some college  education so no she has no training but even if she did it's still the employer's responsibility to ensure f l s a compliance the trial court based its decision on the mistaken belief that miscreate didn't follow bridges brothers time keeping procedure the number one that's a fact question as to whether she followed the procedure or not but to if the court adopts that position and it hasn't today then fair labor standards act compliance becomes the employee's  employee may not prevent an employer from learning about overtime hours but that only an employee's actions only matter if the employer didn't already know or should have known about the hours the employer knew or should have known doesn't matter what the employee did she could have said i'm specifically trying to avoid being paid over time and i'm going to hide it if she's not successful in hiding it that way but it's our scenario but if she's not successful in the employer knows or should have known anyway it doesn't situation for sure right unless the employer knew or should have known from another source in the exercise of reasonable diligence then yeah that's that's the white scenario there's tension between should have known standard kind of responsib employed to be forthcoming you're of no i don't think that there is i think that the employer must exercise reasonable diligent that's what gives you a should have known standard without some baseline level of conduct  so here i think yours that the key question did mrs craig do anything in this case that would have prevented her employer from learning about her wages and hours the answer is of course not she handed that information to the employer every week on the payroll records nothing prevented bridges brothers from looking at those records and in fact reasonable diligence requires that they would have looked at the records now the briefs discuss various disputes i don't want to get much into those except to point out one small but very important point ok before you move on to your mention of previous fact dispute the first issue in your brief though is you you argue that the trial court here in not granting you summary judgment i mean do you concede today that there are factual disputes and that therefore you are not entitled to summary judgment no not with respect to granting a summary judgment because the facts underlying that request  not in dispute she worked the overtime hours she recorded the hours on the employer's time sheet she gave those time sheets to the employer for the employer's approval so nothing would have prevented a reasonably reasonably diligent employer from knowing about her overtime hours in fact those records are the employer's knowledge so with those not in dispute we are entitled to a summary judgment all the factual disputes are on the other side they are on whether bridges brothers had or made available presented to the employer that's a dog yeah the rule we're advocating in this case it's common sense it's simple it's consistent with this circuits opinions other circuits opinions and the supreme court's instruction in anderson in the rules this if an employee and employer has reason to know about an employee's overtime hours if those hours are recorded on the employer's payroll records  that fact issue that i wanted to mention bridge's brothers admits that it glanced at the payroll records on payroll day i'm using the term glance because that's their word but they looked at him and bridges brought brothers in the thirty six deposition had this to say now if someone did something inside payroll that maybe shouldn't have come out working overtime comma or put down something they shouldn't have then i will get those sheets and look at them  fact that bridges brothers admitted it looked at these time sheets that alone raises a fact question as to whether the employer had actual knowledge so prevents summary judgment from being granted against  few points mr bill arrays but i think the most important fact here is that the only reason that this crane wasn't paid for these overtime hours is because she made the choice on her own without any instruction from issue are the hours that miss craig recorded on her time sheet where she would write two hours worked at home and then as with all bridges brothers employees she they turn their time sheets in to m payroll records were just brothers payroll records reflect not the notations that miss craig would make at home or whether she's doing this work on the time she did she held it was in the payroll records that she created in the company on the ask a question i mean it is true or at least at this stage of the case you must take as true the testimony that mr bridges the older bridge is instructed miss krag that five people were eligible for overtime right her testimony was that he told her he identified some speed people that should get overtime right reason was not among but there is not testimony that that instruction was those are the only people ok or that is were you are not to ok and one could argue about that i suppose a trial but she's instructed these five people are eligible for overtime she's not among them she doesn't have any labor law background or anything like that i presume right so i mean what is she doing wrong at least in terms of following her employer's instructions when she  calculates the payments that are owed consistent with the employer's instructions or in this goes what is she doing wrong i didn't know to do it differently right why would she know well i think the evidence reflects that she did one she paid overtime to other employees and there's no indication that any other employees not just the union employees than any other employee of bridge brothers was not properly paid overtime additionally i want to kasian when she chose to record the overtime hours put them in the payroll system they were paid so show is at a new area of area and towards the end yes the additionally when i asked her her deposition you know why did she put two hours down on a time sheet but then we are totalling up right down to zero and her testimony is on the page for eleven of the record was i did it because i didn't think the company could pay the extra money that is me making that's not i didn't know to put the time down i didn't think i had to i didn't think i was eligible that's just i'm deciding i and not to do it let me ask you i mean my understanding and please correct me if i'm wrong is that she was putting in the actual numbers of hours that she work but that she was not in the payment column crediting herself for time and a half for the hours above forty per week is that accurate  are partially accurate there are some days where she recorded the hours correctly but then did not calculate the pay the rate at time of the at the overtime rate there are additional hours of days where she claims she worked outside the office either one was a at home and the other at her son's soccer practice she was doing some work there recorded that on the time she noted not exactly i think it is in the white decision addresses this the question i'm talking about the c f r reg that's what it says right it is known or should have known that the employee was not recording the time properly here we have when the employer has a process for recording the time ok it's whether the employer knows or has reason to believe that the employees working forty more than forty hours a week right ye ok so and so the question is whether jury could still find here and here we have payroll records at least some of which if not most of which show that she is in fact working more than forty hours a week i mean granted you would have to look at the hours you'd have to look at these but if you look at them it's you know on its face there it is number two we have the e mail june first two thousand and eleven from the younger bridges to the older bridges where he says like in capital letters she needs to stop working weekends and working overtime right yes why isn't that i mean let's just stop there was why doesn't that go to trial if i'm wrong with that e mail on its face reflects the knowledge that in fact she has been working overtime maybe they didn't want her to work overtime that's a different issue but it shows knowledge that they're working actual numbers that she's working overtime you know morse sundays and saturday kept only forty hours a week if she can finish it during the week then wait until all caps monday surely a jury could look at this and say  they knew she was working more than forty hours a week there was a conversation between mr bridges in miss craig where she said i can't get all my work done and his response to her was not i'm not paying you overtime or  overtime it's you should not be working overtime why not i'm going to have three pokus done this email i mean why doesn't this itself create a genuine issue as to whether they actually knew not just should have known actually knew she was working more than forty hours a week specifically why doesn't this e mail do that that reflects her indication that her statement to the company that she felt her work required that and the company's decision not to tolerate that that doesn't sound like it matters for per i mean this that if you dislike a strict liability statute it does matter when the employer creates a process asks the employee to accurately record their time that that goes into the the payroll system and that's what's used to generate the paycheck but the time was accurately reported wasn't it it was just it wasn't computed time  and by miscreate herself who made the decision not to do that because she didn't think the company could pay it not because she was told not to she was making a choice for herself to i did work for a struggling company and you were working overtime despite the economic circumstances of the company you're still entitle to it right yes it and even even if a company would prefer that you get it done in forty hours if you work forty eight hours and the employee employer knows or should have know that you're doing those extra hours even though they want you to do it in forty hours they got to pay right absolutely now this is this is not a struggling company this was mean the statute makes it easy for us the only thing that matters is did she work the forty hours and under why did she not hide the fact that she worked the forty hours and did they have reason to know she was working the forty hours the on that if she's try if she doesn't want the money and she can't waive her entitlement the employer can't get out of it otherwise it's really simple and i have to say i look at this e mail from the principals of the company and you look at that and you look there's some other testimony i think from the older mr bridges that he saw her there working on weekends he was tired of going to the younger one says dad's going in on the weekends to sort of babysit her when she's there i mean clearly it would seem a jury could find that she's working more than forty hours a week it's six thousand dollars in dispute i really am scratching my frankly i we're having this argument about this what i am and what responsibility or a fossil not with respect to the truck driver who diligently turns in his time sheet accurately cords this time and if mr bridges gets that says this it wasn't a good month i'm on the employee not the employer when it when the employee wants the employees actions or inactions that result in the overtime not being paid then yes the mr mr bridges where in that those the employer's responsibility to be reasonably diligent of the wife's white describes the employer needs to have a reasonable process by which the employees can report their time to the company that will result in the overtime being paid there was a problem such a process in place here miss craig was in charge of the process she administered it adequately for all the employees except for herself and she made a decision to alter you know to alter the the rate of pay or to not record not input the hours from her time sheets that she recorded into the company's payroll system but white doesn't say that  when there is evidence that an employer had actual knowledge that somebody is working more than forty hours a week additional evidence that the employee departed from the payroll process in some fashion means no liability for the overtime pay it i mean that there wasn't evidence in white like we have here that they had actually knew themselves actually knew i guess  i just disagree on the on that e mail is a response to the conversation the miss craig did have were she was expressing frustration i'm not getting my work done now she wasn't getting her work done because she was doing other work for other companies forty hours in the month of june no more i mean you know i mean even if we're going to try to read it the way you're suggesting more suggests there have has been some already certainly there her son who was in a travel soccer league she took time for that so her schedule was not a fixed nine to five job monday to friday such that any saturday and sunday hours would necessarily involve over forty  work week there was certainly frustration with miss craig not getting her work done and what we're trying to work knocking the work done in the coming year on the weekends to to get caught up you know the that was you know resulting one from her and settles in under there's a there's a difference between knowing she's not getting her worked on this is this job isn't as hard as she seems making it it's not take it should take her as much time she should know that the time she's putting in of her time sheets and put in using to process process payroll is inaccurate it seems i mean frankly one reading in this record is they know she's working the hours they don't want to work right there he didn't do that and so you know he could have you know if he had done that and said you're working you're working too much time i'm not paid so over time that would clearly be different there's the record here what you may not need at all yet judge kept which asked a great question which is why are we here over six thousand dollars here's why this case matters if this court lets bridges brothers just ignore their o payroll records then employees will be at a near total loss to ever prove uncompensated hours based on payroll records that's exactly the opposite of the supreme court's instructions in andersen i'm not sure where that leaves employees but i know what message it sends do employers just play dumb and you don't have to follow the law it rewards the worst businesses and punishes those good businesses that do act with reasonable diligence because they'll be a competitive disadvantage to business is they just ignore the law and ignore what's going on in their own business and one addressed one quick point about if bridges brothers didn't want to working overtime or whatever the solution is discipline or if they think she's not working all the hours she's working or whatever else you discipline or you don't not pay or the fair labor standards act doesn't you determinator or the terminator how this case originated to us it was with their germination and why do we have it for six thousand dollars i assume or some bad blood going on here since the terminations and anyway yeah you terminate somebody if they're not well she was terminated for insubordination in sport nation is not doing what they tell you to do and one thing they said don't work more than forty hours if she's working for more than forty hours she's not doing the players directions and insubordinate and firing the base so yeah yeah that's exactly right that that's the reason they fired her than on that point is it feasible under the circumstances like this where were the a bookkeeper pretty much as a not a nine to five job you re with it's a flex work schedule sort of a situation modern era of twenty first century flexibility right so is it actually even feasible for an employer to say don't work more that when you get to forty zero or stop so a legitimate  s absolutely an employer can say that and if an employee does something other than the phone then instruction and all you have to do is look at the time she's to find out things management people are not governed by this are they having they could make her a management ploy give her a salary rather than are really i mean there are ways to get around it there are ways to get around it that may not apply here because she was a low level she's not an accountant she's just the bookkeeper calculate over a bit i thought yeah yeah that's an absolute yes that's absolutely that the companies have made people managerial when they should have been are really to actually avoid this time and i have and i've i've had a couple cases like that so i hope that it's it's been done whether it's legal or not i can't tell you  if if there are no there are questions i'll just end with all right thank you for end with corey and with we ask that you grant summary judgment to miscreate that's very important in this case the evidence is on the payroll records that's the