Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11071/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11071

ARMOUR ROBINSON, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly 

Situated, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

NEXION HEALTH AT TERRELL, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-3853

Before JONES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has carefully considered this Fair Labor Standards Act case in 

light of the briefs and excellent oral arguments, and a thorough review of the 

record. We conclude that although it is a close question, there are material 

fact issues concerning (a) whether the defendant maintained accurate and 

complete time records, (b) whether Nexion knew that the plaintiff was working 

“off the clock,” and (c) whether and to what extent the plaintiff was instructed 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11071 Document: 00513800396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
No. 15-11071

2

to and did work “off the clock,” rendering her eligible to receive even more 

overtime compensation than she already was paid. The “sham affidavit” rule, 

which prevents a party from defeating a motion for summary judgment “using 

an affidavit that impeaches, without explanation, sworn testimony,” S.W.S. 

Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 495 (5th Cir. 1996), is inapposite here 

because the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and subsequent affidavit can be 

reconciled. In remanding this case for further proceedings, we do not express 

an opinion on its ultimate merits. The district court's summary judgment is 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

 Case: 15-11071 Document: 00513800396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016