### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 21, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Fe rn M. Smith, Unit ed States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * California, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1455 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-80259 -CV -D MM ROB ER T N IL AN D, on behalf of him self an d a ll oth er s si m ilarl y

sit ua te d, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us DELTA RECYCLING CORP ., a Fl or ida c or por at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 21 , 200 4) Before BL ACK

and MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg es, and SMIT H , D istrict Judg e. * PE R CU RIA M:2

Ro be rt N iland a ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o D e l t aR e c yc l i n g C o r

p . ( D e l t a ) i n h i s c a s e s e e k i n g c o mp e n s a t i o n f o r b a c ko v e rt i me wag es un de r th e Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act (FLSA), as co di fie d a t 2 9 U.S.C. § 21 6. N iland arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in hol din g th at

D el ta ’ s se lf

-a udi t and paym en t of

ba ck w ag es w er e ad equa te ly

sup er vis ed by the D ep ar

tm en t of L ab or (D O L ). N iland a lso arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in hol din g he w ai ve d hi s r igh t to su e whe n h e acc ep te d p aym en t fr om Delt a. W e d is ag ree a nd affi rm . I. BACKGROUND N iland w as atr

uc k dr ive r fo r D el ta . D ur ing N iland’ s e m plo ym en t, D el ta
w as a cquir ed

by A lli ed W as te N orth A m er ic a, I nc . ( A lli ed ). A ft er the a cquis iti on, Allied discovered that De lta m ight n ot have paid so m e of its curre nt and form er em pl oyees o ve rti m e in co m

pl ia nc e wit h t he FLSA. Delt a co nt act edth e DOL
re gard ing thi s po te nti al vio la tio n. T he r es ult w as aCo m

pli an ce P ar

tne rs hip Agr eem en t (Ag reem en t) e nt ered in to be twee n t he DOL andDelt a. T he A gr ee m en t c ont ai ne d th e fo llo w ing sig nif ic an t pr ovi sio ns: ( 1) D el ta
w oul d c ondu ct

avol unt ar

y se lf -a udi t t o de te rm ine ove rt im e w ag e lia bil iti es ; (2 ) the D O L w oul d su

pe rv ise the paym en t of

any ba ck w ag es ; and ( 3) a lth ough D el taw oul d no t be pe rm itt ed to use D O L F orm

W H -5 8 ( en tit le d “ Re ce ipt f orNiland was not c ontacted by the DOL , Delta, or

Delta’ s outside counsel duringthe 1 se lf -a ud it. 3 Paym en t of

Ba ck W ag es ”) , it

w oul d be a llo w ed

to use the w ai ve r langua ge c o n t a i n e di n th e f

o rm. Dur in g t he sel f-au di t, Del ta de te rm in editowed ba ckwage s t o Ni la nd . On May 23, 200 2, D el tase nt a

c he ck a lon g w ithale tte r an d r ec ei pt t o N iland f or these wa ges. T he letter w as signed byCatharine E lling sen, w ho was ac ting as

1 De lta’ s corporate counsel. T his letter, the r eceipt, and the check each indicated that a cc ep tanc e co nst itu te d w ai ve r of any le ga l c la im s. I nde ed , the r ec ei pt spe ci fi ca lly

inc lud ed the w ai ve r langua ge f

ro m D O L F orm

W H -5 8. N iland c al le d E lli ngse n be ca use he be lie ve d he w as ow ed m or e than th e check indicated. E lling sen stated the check wa s for the corr ect am ount . She then sugg ested Niland contact L ori Brow n, an attorney in the Miam i office of

the firm that w as se rv ing a s D el ta ’ s ou tsi de c ouns el
. B ro w n to ld N iland an in ve sti ga tio n had been condu cted and that it had confirm ed his check was f or the corre ct
am ou nt . Neit he r Ell in gs en no r Bro wn ev er i ns tru ct edNil an d t o c on ta ctth e DOL,
an d Ni la nd di d n ot do so on hi s o wn.Delta’ s motion was orig inally styled as a

motion to di smiss, butit was conve rted to a 2 mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. 4 N iland e ve ntu al ly

de ci de d to c as h th e ch ec k, but ane wc he ck

ha d to be issued b ecause the original had expired. T he sam e w aiver language wa s printed
on th e n ew ch eck , and Nil an d e nd or se d a nd cas he d i t o n Oct ob er 2 5, 2 00 2. An offic ial DO L r ecord obtained throu gh the Freedom of Inform ation Act indicated the DO L spent a total of one hour supervisin g the paym ent of back
wa ges to Delta’ s em

ploy ees. In re liance on this record, the district court denied D el ta ’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. I n r es pons e, D el taf ile d am oti on f

or 2 reconsideration. T his m otion wa s accom panied by both an affidavit and a letter. T he a ff idavit w as by A lf re d P er ry , Re gio na l D ir ec tor

f or the S outhe as t Re gio n f or the D O L a t the ti m e the A gr ee m en t w as sig ne d and i m ple m en te d. I n it , Perr y stated the following: (1) he entere d into an agree m ent with D elta in which he a gr ee d to sup er

vis e the paym en t of

ba ck w ag es to vari ous D el tae m plo y ee s; (2 ) he spe nt m an y

hours ove r se ve ra l m onths w orkin g onthe ne got ia tio n and
com pletion of the D elta agre em ent; (3) he negotiated with De lta that an ind ep en de nt a cc ount ing f irm w oul d c al cu la te e m

plo y ee s’ ba ck

w ag es ba se d on fo rm ula s, a ssu m

pti ons, and f

ac tor s he appr ove d; ( 4) he r ev ie w ed and a ppr ove d th e re port of the a cc ount ing f

irm ; ( 5) he ne got ia te d th e w ai ve r langua ge inc lud ed in5

paym ents to the em

ploy ees; and (6) alm ost all the tim e he spent on the case w as no t re co rd edbe cau se itwas n ot hi s p ract ic e to do so . A lso a cc om

pany ing the m oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n w as ale tte r fr om the
ac co unt ing f

irm hir ed by D el ta . T he le tte r ind ic at ed that so m e of

the ti m e re co rd s pr ovi de d by

D el taw er e ill eg ibl e an d othe rs w er e unava ila ble
. T he le tte r al so noted th at it wa s not alway s poss ible to determ ine the actual am ount of tim e an em ploy ee w orked during a given pay period. F inally , the le tter observed that there
w er e som et im es dis cr ep an ci es a m ong the vari ous sour ce s of payro ll inf

orm at ion
. Upon reconsideration, the district court entere d an order granting summ ary j udgm en t i n f

av or of D el ta , f ro m w hic h N iland a

ppe al s. II. DISCUSS ION W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Iraola & CI A , S. A
. v . Ki m be rly -C

lar k Co rp. , 32 5 F .3d12 74 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Purs uant t o 29 U
. S. C. § 21 6( c) , the D O L is au tho ri ze d to sup er vis e paym en t of ba ckwage s o wedto em

pl oyees. Lynn’s F

ood S tores, Inc. v. United States , 679Se c tio n 2 16 (c ) p ro vid e s: 3 The Sec reta

ry is authorized to supervise the pa y ment of the unpa id minim um wag es or the unpa id overtime compe nsation owingto any employ ee or

employ ees un de r s e c tio n [20 6 o r 2 07 of thi s ti tle ], and

the a g re e me nt o f a

ny e mpl oye e to acc ept such pa

y ment shall upon pay

ment in full constitute a waiver by such employ ee of

any rig ht he may

have unde r subsec tion (b) of this section to such unpaid minimum wage s or unpaid over time compensation and a

n additional equal amou nt a s li qu idate d d ama g e s. 29 U.S.C. § 216(c). In Bo nn e r v . Ci ty

of Pric ha rd, 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (e n b anc ), thi s 4 Court a do pte d a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt a ll d e c isi on s o f t he fo rm e r F if

th C ir c uit ha nd e d d own p ri or

to close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 6 F. 2d 13 50, 1353 (11t h Cir. 1982 ). If an em ploy ee ac cepts the paym ent of back 3
w ag es sup er

vis ed by the D O L , the e m

plo y ee w ai ve s th e ri ght

to br ing sui t f

or un pa idwage s an d l iq ui da te d d am ag es . Id
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed ( 1) the D O L a de qua te ly

sup er vis ed the paym en t of

ba ck w ag es he re , and ( 2) N iland w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o br ing sui t. N iland argues these rulings cons titute error. W e disagree. A. W hether the DO

L A dequat ely Supervised N iland c ont en ds the D O L f ai le d to a de qua te ly

sup er vis e the paym en t of ba ck w ag es . W e are gu id edhe re b y

ou r de ci si on s i n t wo p rev io us cas es . See Lynn’s Foo d S to re s, 679 F. 2d at 13 52–5 3; Sneed v. Sneed’s Shipbuil ding , I nc. , 545 F
. 2d 537, 538 –39 (5 th C ir
. 197 7)
. I n Lynn’s F ood S tores , w e held there w as 4 ina de qua te sup er

vis ionw he re the D O L w as c om ple te ly uni nvol ve d intheNiland ar gues that the district cour t erre d when it g rante d Delta’ s motion for 5 rec onsideration bec ause Per ry ’s af fidavit was not new ly

discovere d evidenc e. We re view for abuse of discretion. Region 8 Forest Serv . Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcoc k, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993). Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 2.21 and 2.22, Perr y was not per

mitted to testi fy without permission from the DOL . Perry ’s testimony was not ava ilable until J uly 18, 2003, when the Secr etar

y permitted Perr

y to submittestimony

on Delta’ s behalf. G iven that this date wa s afte r the district cour

t’s J uly 7, 2003, order

denying D elta summary

judgme nt, we conc lude the district court did not abuse its discre tion by consideringthe af

fidavit. See A lcock, 993 F.2d at 806. 7 em pl oyer’s att em

pt to set tl e a cl ai m

forba ckwage s. See 679 F.2d at 1352 –53. In
co ntr as t, in Sne ed

, we held there w as adequate supervision wher e a D OL official investig ated the claim

for back w ages, dete rm ined the am ount owed the em ploy ee, pr es en te d th e ch ec k to the e m plo y ee on the e m

plo y er ’ s be ha lf

, and r equir ed

the
em pl oyee to si gn a rece ip t wai vi ng hi s ri gh t t o s ue . See 545 F. 2d at 53 8–39
. Inthi s c as e, the P er

ry a ff idavit de m onstrate s th at , a s in Sneed , th e DOL play ed a significant role in both De lta’ s self-audit and Delta’ s paym ent of back
w ag es . T he a ff

idavit sho w s th e D O L e nte re d in to the A gr ee m en t w ithD el ta

5 unde r w hic h P er

ry a gr ee d to sup er

vis e the paym en t of

ba ck w ag es to vari ous D el ta
em plo y ee s, inc lud ing N iland. I nde ed , P er ry spe ci fi ca lly

state d he spe nt m an y hour s ov er

se ve ra l m onths w orkin g onthe ne got ia tio n and c om ple tio n of the A gr ee m en t, de vot ing his ti m e to:

(a ) the r ev ie wof

c or re spon de nc e to and f

ro m D el ta re pr es en ta tiv es ; ( b) the ne got ia tio n and f ina liz at ionof the D el taa gr ee m en t; (c ) the ne got ia tio n, r ev ie w , and approval of form

ulas and assum

ption s to be used byan8 independ ent accounting firm to calculate back w ages unde r m y sup er vis ion ; ( d) the ne got ia tio n of w ha t data w oul d be c onsi de re d intho se c al cu la tio ns; ( e) the ne got ia tio n, r ev ie w , and a ppr ova l of

langua ge that w oul d inform em ploy ees that their ac ceptance of bac k wages w oul d w ai ve the ir

r igh ts t o su e unde r se ct ion16( b) of the FL SA ; ( f) the ne got ia tio n, r ev ie w , and a ppr ova l of

the docum ents that would contain this langu age, which inc lud ed ale tte r to e m

plo y ee s, ar ec ei pt f

or r etro ac tiv e w ag e paym en t, and the ba ck of aba ck w ag e ch ec k; (g) the coordination of DO L a ctivities int ended to track an d m an ag e the ba ck

w ag e paym en ts, inc lud ing any que sti ons fr om

D el tae m plo y ee s a bout the e ff ec t of ac ce pti ng the ba ck

w ag es or howthe y w er e ca lc ulate d; (h) the cr eation of an escrow -ty pe account to accept back w ag es on b eh al f of

D el tae m plo y ee s who c oul d no t be loc at ed ; and ( i) dis cu ssi on w iththe dir ec tor and a ssi stant dir ec tor of the D O L ’ s M iam i of

fi ce about the D el ta ag reem en t an d a ny relat edm at te rs . Pe rr y a lso ne got ia te d w ithD el tathat an in de pe nde nt a cc ount ing f irm w oul d calculate e m

ploy ees’ back wa ges based on form ulas, assum

ption s, and fa ctors that he appr ove d. F urthe rm or e, P er ry r ev ie w ed and a ppr ove d th e re port of

the
ac co unt ing f

irm . T he f

ac ts h er e ar e thu s f

ar r em ove d f

ro m tho se in Ly nn’

s F ood Stores wher e th ere was no DOL sup erv is io n wh at so ev er. See 679 F.2d at 1352 –53.We do not sugg est that the only way to establish the adequa cy of DOL supervision is by 6 the pre sentation of an a ffidavit by a DOL repr esenta

tive. 9 A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e the D O L—a ct ing thr oughP er ry —a de qua te ly supe rv ise d th e paym en t of ba ck w ag es to N iland. 6 B. W he the r N ila nd W aiv ed H is R igh t t o B rin g Su it N iland c ont en ds tha t, be ca use D el tadid

not use f orm W H -5 8, it

is pr ec lud ed f ro m c la im ing that he w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o br ing sui t. W e ar e not persuaded. AW H- 58 is a standard form used by the DO L to inform

an em ploy ee that, a lth oughhe ha s th e ri ght to fi le sui t un de r 29 U
. S. C. § 21 6( b) , a cc ep tanc e of the back wa ges offere d will result in wa iver of those rights. T he DO L c an either
au tho ri ze an e m

plo y er to use the W H -5 8 or au th or iz e o th er wai ve r la ng ua ge . See 29 C
. F. R. § 51 6. 2( b) (2 ). H er e, P er ry ’ s a ff idavit sho w s th e D O L auth or iz ed the use of De lta’ s waiver

language. T herefor e, this langu age w as sufficient to create an
en fo rceabl e wai ve r of

Nil an d’s ri gh t t o s ue .10 III. CONCLUSION For the re asons stated, the district court did n ot err when it conclud ed (1 ) the D O L e xe rc ise d a de qua te sup er vis ion , and ( 2) N iland w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o br in g s ui t. AFFIR MED.