Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-16-10095/USCOURTS-ca11-16-10095-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danilo Lopez Garcia
Appellant
Yachting Promotions, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10095

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-20776-RNS

DANILO LOPEZ GARCIA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

YACHTING PROMOTIONS, INC., 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 27, 2016)

Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiff Danilo Lopez Garcia appeals the grant of summary judgment in 

favor of defendant Yachting Promotions, Inc. dismissing his claim that Yachting 

USCA11 Case: 16-10095 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 1 of 7
2

Promotions failed to pay him overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207. After careful review, we affirm.

In his complaint, Garcia alleged that despite the fact that he worked more 

than 40 hours in each week he was employed by Yachting Promotions, he was not 

appropriately compensated for his overtime work. Yachting Promotions argued

that Garcia was not entitled to the time-and-a-half overtime pay otherwise 

mandated by the FLSA because he had agreed to be paid according to the 

fluctuating workweek method. Indeed, on March 2, 2007, Garcia signed a form 

that read as follows:

This will confirm that beginning on March 2nd the 

Company will continue to pay your weekly base salary 

for all hours worked in a workweek. You understand that 

your weekly hours will fluctuate and that this base salary 

will compensate you for any and all hours worked. In 

order to reward you for those times when your supervisor 

approves work greater than 40 hours in any given 

workweek all eligible salaried non-exempt employees 

will begin receiving at least an additional half-time for 

those hours greater than 40 in a workweek. To monitor 

this compensation program, the Company requires [you] 

to maintain the current practice of: (a) keeping a daily 

record of the number of hours worked and submitting it 

to your corresponding office’s record keeper; and (b) 

having received authorization from your supervisor 

before working more than 40 hours in any given 

workweek.

This salary method of payment may be changed or 

modified as deemed appropriate by the Company. If you 

have any questions regarding this feel free to contact me.

USCA11 Case: 16-10095 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 2 of 7
3

I have read and understand the above.

Moreover, Garcia acknowledged in his deposition that he understood he was paid 

on a salary basis, so that he received $779.48 of base pay each week. But Garcia, a 

native Spanish speaker, argues that he did not understand the document he signed 

and only did so because he was told that he had to in order to keep his job. He also 

asked his supervisors on multiple occasions how his pay was calculated, but never 

received a clear answer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 

Yachting Promotions, finding that Garcia had a clear understanding of how he was 

to be compensated.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, 

taking all of the facts in the record and drawing all reasonable inferences in the 

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 

1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008); Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th 

Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is proper where “there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A factual dispute is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Hinkle v. 

Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

USCA11 Case: 16-10095 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 3 of 7
4

Generally, the FLSA requires employers to pay an employee one and onehalf times the employee’s “regular rate” for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours. 

See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The “regular rate” is the hourly rate at which the 

employer pays the employee for normal, non-overtime hours in a 40-hour 

workweek. See Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419

(1945). But FLSA implementing regulations provide for an alternative way to 

calculate the compensation of certain salaried employees: the fluctuating 

workweek method. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.114. The fluctuating workweek method 

of payment allows an employee whose hours fluctuate from week to week to be 

compensated at a fixed amount per week as straight-time pay irrespective of the 

number of hours worked, whether few or many. Id. Payment for overtime hours 

under this method is at one-half time regular-rate instead of the standard one and 

one-half time rate because, in theory, the straight-time rate already includes 

compensation for all hours worked. Notably, the fluctuating workweek method is 

merely one way to meet the FLSA’s overtime requirements -- it is not an exception 

to those requirements. Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299, 

1311 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, the employee bears the burden of proving that the 

employer failed to properly administer the payments. Id.

The Department of Labor’s regulations permitting the fluctuating workweek 

to be implemented require that four criteria be met:

USCA11 Case: 16-10095 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 4 of 7
5

(1) the employee clearly understands that the straightsalary covers whatever hours he or she is required to 

work; 

(2) the straight-salary is paid irrespective of whether the 

workweek is one in which a full schedule of hours are 

worked; 

(3) the straight-salary is sufficient to provide a pay-rate 

not less than the applicable minimum wage rate for every 

hour worked in those workweeks in which the number of 

hours worked is greatest; and 

(4) in addition to straight-salary, the employee is paid for 

all hours in excess of the statutory maximum at a rate not 

less than one-half the regular rate of pay.

See 29 C.F.R. § 778.114. The only point at issue here is the first prong, whether 

Garcia had a clear understanding of how he was to be paid.

The fluctuating workweek method of payment applies only if there is a clear 

mutual understanding of the parties that the fixed salary is compensation for 

however many hours the employee may work in a particular week, rather than for a 

fixed number of hours per week. See Clements v. Serco, Inc., 530 F.3d 1224, 1230 

(10th Cir. 2008); see also Valerio v. Putnam Assocs. Inc., 173 F.3d 35, 39 (1st Cir. 

1999) (same). One way that clear mutual understanding can be achieved directly is 

by employers working to educate their employees. See Samson v. Apollo Res., 

Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 637 (5th Cir. 2001). An employee does not have to understand 

every contour of how the fluctuating workweek method is used to calculate salary, 

so long as the employee understands that his base salary is fixed regardless of the 

USCA11 Case: 16-10095 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 5 of 7
6

hours worked. Clements, 530 F.3d at 1230; Samson, 242 F.3d at 636–37; Valerio, 

173 F.3d at 40. Crucially, the employee must “clearly understand[] that the salary 

covers whatever hours the job may demand in a particular workweek and the 

employer pays the salary even though the workweek is one in which a full 

schedule of hours is not worked.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(c). As the Fourth Circuit 

has explained, “the existence of a clear mutual understanding under § 778.114 can 

be based on the implied terms of one’s employment agreement if it is clear from 

the employee’s actions that he or she understood the payment plan in spite of afterthe-fact verbal contentions otherwise.” Monahan v. Cty. of Chesterfield, Va., 95 

F.3d 1263, 1281 (4th Cir. 1996).

Here, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Garcia had a clear 

understanding that his base salary remained the same regardless of how many 

hours he worked, be it over or under 40 hours a week. For starters, the

memorandum he signed regarding Yachting Promotions’ adoption of the 

fluctuating workweek method of calculating his pay provided that “the Company 

will continue to pay [his] weekly base salary for all hours worked in a workweek” 

and that he understood that “[his] weekly hours will fluctuate and that this base 

salary will compensate [him] for any and all hours worked.” (Emphasis added). 

But even if we assume that Garcia did not comprehend English well enough to 

understand the memorandum, it is clear from the record that Garcia understood that 

USCA11 Case: 16-10095 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 6 of 7
7

the fluctuating method would be used. In his deposition, Garcia admitted that 

during the relevant time period, he was not paid on an hourly basis, but was paid 

“by [a] salary” of $779.84 per week. Moreover, Garcia submitted evidence 

indicating that as early as 2006, one supervisor had explained to him that he was a 

“salary employee who did receive overtime,” and another instructed that he be told 

that he was “a salary employee” and was paid a “weekly salary.” 

As for Garcia’s claim that his supervisors gave confusing answers to his 

questions about how his overtime pay was calculated, we are unpersuaded. As 

many courts have said, an employee does not have to understand every contour of 

how the fluctuating workweek method is used to calculate salary, so long as the 

employee understands that his base salary is fixed regardless of the hours worked. 

Clements, 530 F.3d at 1230; Samson, 242 F.3d at 636–37; Valerio, 173 F.3d at 40. 

Garcia has put forth no evidence that he did not understand what the term “salary”

meant, nor is there anything in the record to suggest that he did not understand that 

his salary would be paid even if he worked less than the “full schedule of hours” 

for the week. Thus, we cannot say that there is any dispute of fact about whether 

Garcia clearly understood that the fluctuating workweek method applied to him. 

Accordingly, because no other issues are in dispute, we affirm the district court’s

decision granting summary judgment in favor of Yachting Promotions.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 16-10095 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Page: 7 of 7