Leonard Poe v. IESI MD Corporation , No. 559, Sept. Term 2018. Opinion by Arthur, J.

MARYLAND WAGE AND HOUR LAW

— OVERTIME FOR “DAY

- RATE ”

EMPLOYEES

Under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and its implementing regulations , eligible

employees are entitled to an overtime wage of at least 1.5 times the “usual hourl y wage”

or “regular hourly rate ” for each hour that the employee s work in excess of 40 hours

during one workweek. The “regular hourly rate” is determined by dividing the total

compensation for employment in any workweek by the total number of hours worked in

that workweek. Maryland has no statute or regulation expressly stating how to calculate

overtime pay when an employee recei ves compensation at a “day rate” (i.e., a fixed

amount of money per day worked, without regard to the number of hours worked).

A day

- rate employee is entitled to extra half

- time pay (i.e., an extra 50% of the regular

hourly rate) for each hour worked in excess of 40 in one workweek. The employee has

already received 100% of the regular h ourly rate for all hours worked; the fixed day rate

wages compensates the employee for all hours worked, including the overtime hours.

This result is identical to the o vertime calculation f or day

- rate employees under the

federal Fair Labor Standards Act.Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Case No. CAL16

- 42381

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 559

September Term, 20 18

______________________________________

LEONARD POE

v.

IESI MD C ORPORATION

______________________________________

Arthur,

Reed,

Zarnoch, Robert A.

(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

JJ. *

______________________________________

Opinion by Ar t hur

, J.

______________________________________

Filed : November 20, 2019

*Judge Steven B. Gould did not participate in

the Court’s decision to designate this opinion

for publication pursuant to Md. Rule 8

- 605.1.Under Md. Code ( 1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., Supp. 2019 ), § 3

- 415 of the Labor and

Employment Article (“ LE ”), “each employer shall pay an overtime wage of at least 1.5

times the usual hourly wage.” This case presents the question of how the overtime wage

is computed when an employee is n ot paid by the hour.

Appellant Leonard Poe was employed by appellee IESI MD Corp., a trash

- hauling

business. IESI paid Poe a “day rate”

– i.e., it paid him a specified amount of money per

day rather than per hour of work. Day

- rate compensation is commo n in the trash

- hauling

industry, because it motivates employees to work quickly and efficiently: the sooner the

employees finish the job, the greater their rate of pay.

When Poe worked more than 40 hours in a week, he was entitled to overtime

compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201

- 219, and the

Maryland Wage and Hour Law, LE §§ 3

- 401 to

- 431. IESI computed Poe’s overtime

compensation by employing 29 C.F.R. § 778.112, a longstanding federal regulation that

dictates the method for computing overtime compensation for day

- rate employees under

federal law.

Poe disputed IESI’s calculations. He filed suit, claiming that the federal regulation

was inconsistent with the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and that, in relying on the

f ederal regulation, IESI had understated the amount of overtime compensation that he

was due under State law. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County granted IESI’s

motion for summary judgment.

The circuit court placed its decision on two grounds. First, the court reasoned that

the federal regulation is consistent with Maryland law. Second, the court reasoned that,2

under the so

- called Motor Carrier Act exemption in LE § 3

- 415(b)(1), the Maryland

Wage and Hour Law did not apply to IESI.

Poe appea led. He presents the following questions:

1. Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment against Mr. Poe

based upon a federal Department of Labor regulation permitting the

payment of a “half

- time” overtime rate, where Mr. Poe brings no claim

under federal law, and where Maryland law mandates tha t non

- exempt

employees like Mr. Poe shall receive 1.5 times their regular rate of pay

for overtime hours?

2. Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment against Mr. Poe

based upon the application of the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the

Maryland Wa ge and Hour Law, where Mr. Poe did not engage in any

interstate commerce during the relevant time period, or where any

interstate activity was de minimis ?

We shall affirm the judgment on the ground that IESI ’s computation of Poe’s

overtime compensation di d not violate the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. We do not

reach the separate question of whether IESI is immune from the Maryland Wage and

Hour Law under the Motor Carrier Act exemption.

S TANDARD OF R EVIEW

When a party moves for summary judgment

, the court “shall enter judgment in

favor of or against the moving party if the motion and response show that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is

entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Md. Rule 2

- 501(f). In this case, the

parties appear to agree that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

.

Consequently, the only issue before us is whether the circuit court correctly concluded

that IESI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. “ [T]his Court conducts a de novo3

review to determine whether the circuit court ’ s conclusions were legally correct. ” Trim

v. YMCA of Cent. Maryland

, 233 Md. App. 326, 332 (2017).

T HE P ERTINENT S TATUTES AND R EGULATIONS

In 1938 Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act. Among its many

achievements, the Act created a federal right to overtime compensation for certain

employees who were engaged in interstate commerce. At present, that right is expressed

in 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2)(C), which generally prohibits an employer from employing an

employee for a workweek longer than 40 hours “unless such employee receives

compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less

than one and one

- hal f times the regular rate at which he is employed.” “The statute

contains no definition of regular rate of pay and no rule for its determination.” Bay Ridge

Operating Co. v. Aaron

, 334 U.S. 446, 460 (1948).

LE § 3

- 415(a) states the general rule for overt ime compensation under Maryland

law: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, each employer shall pay an overtime

wage of at least 1.5 times the usual hourly wage, computed in accordance with § 3

- 420 of

this subtitle.” LE § 3

- 420(a) instructs us tha t, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this

section, an employer shall compute the wage for overtime under § 3

- 415 of this subtitle

on the basis of each hour over 40 hours that an employee works during 1 workweek.”

Read together, the two Maryland statutes generally require employers to pay an overtime

wage equal to “at least 1.5 times the usual hourly wage” for “each hour over 40 hours that

an employee works ” in a workweek. Like the federal statute, the Maryland statute s

contain no definition of “usual hourly wage” and no rule for its determination.4

The Maryland Department of Labor has adopted two regulations that bear on the

calculation of overtime compensation under Maryland law. First, COMAR

09.12.41.19.A defines the “[r]egular hourly rate” to mean “the usual hourly rate,” a term

similar to “the usual hourly wage” in LE § 3

- 415(a). COMAR 09.12.41.19.B goes on to

state that “[t]he regular hourly rate is determined by dividing the total compensation for

employment in a ny workweek by the total number of hours worked in that workweek.”

Second, COMAR 09.12.41.14.B echoes the Maryland statutes by stat ing

, in pertinent

part, that “[c]ompensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek is

computed at 1

- 1/2 times the regular hourly rate at which the employee is employed.”

The State and federal statutes are easy to apply to a conventional employment

agreement

, in which an employee is paid a fixed hourly rate. Employment contracts,

however, “take many forms.” Ba y Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron

, 334 U.S. at 460.

The rate of pay may be by the hour, by piecework, by the week, month or

year, and with or without a guarantee that earnings for a period of time

shall be at least a stated sum. The regular rate may vary from week to

week. The employee’s hours may be regular or irregular. From all such

wages the regular hourly rate must be extracted.

Id. at 460

- 61 (citations omitted)

.

More than 50 years ago, in 1968, the United States Department of Labor adopted a

regulation interpreting how an employer must calculate overtime compensation, under

the Fair Labor Standards Act, for employees who are paid a fixed sum of money for a

day’s w ork, regardless of how many hours it takes them to do that work. That regulation,

29 C.F.R. § 778.112, states:5

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day’s work or for doing a particular

job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job,

and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular

rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job

rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He

is then entitled t o extra half

- time pay at this rate for all hours worked in

excess of 40 in the workweek.

T he following example illustrates how 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 operates in practice.

First, assume that an employee is paid a day rate of $200 per day, or $1000 over the

course of a five

- day week. Assume, further, that the employee works five days and logs

50 hours in a given week. Under the federal regulation, the employer would compute the

“regular rate” by dividing $1000 (“all the sums received at such day rates or jo b rates in

the workweek”) by 50 (“the total hours actually worked”), which equals $20 per hour.

The employee would then be entitled to an additional $10 per hour (“extra half

- time pay”

of half the “regular rate” of $20 ), or $100 in total, for the 10 hours that he or she worked

“in excess of 40.” In total, therefore, the employee would be entitled to $1100, or $100

over and above what he or she would receive through the day rate alone.

It may not be immediately apparent how 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 can satisfy the

federal statutory requirement of overtime compensation of “not less than one and one

half times the regular rate at which [the employee] is employed” (29 U.S.C. §

207(a)(2) (C) ) when the regulation requires only “extra half

- time pay at [the regular] rate

for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.” If the employee’s “regular rate”

is $20 per hour and if the employee worked 10 hours of overtime, why isn’t the employer

liable for $300 in overtime compensation ($20 x 1.5 x 10) on top of the $1000 in day

- rate

pay ?6

The answer is that, when employees have been paid a day rate, they have already

been compensated at their full “regular rate” for t he hours that they have worked in

excess of 40 :

“ The fixed salary compensates the employee for all his h ours, the overtime

ones included

. He therefore receives 100% of his regular rate for each hour

that he worked. ”

Du f rene v. Brow n ing

- Ferris, Inc

., 994 F. Supp. 748, 753 (E.D. La. 1998) (quoting Condo

v. Sysco Corp

., 1 F.3d 599, 605 (7th Cir. 1993) )

, aff’ d

, 207 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2000)

.

For that reason, the employee “‘ is entitled only to an additional fifty percent of

[the] regular rate for the hours that he [or she] worked in excess of forty. ’ ” Id

. (quoting

Condo v. Sysco Corp

., 1 F.3d at 605). Under our example

, the employee receives 1.5

times the “regular rate” of $20 per hour when he or she works 50 hours, is paid day

- rate

compensation of $1000 (or $200 a day), and gets an additional $100 ($20 x

. 5 x 10 ) in

overtime compensation

. In economic terms

, the employee receives $20 per hour (or

$800) for the first 40 hours and $30 per hour (or $300) for the 10 hours in excess of 40,

for a total of $1100.

Under the method prescribed by the United States Department of Labor

, “ the

greater number of hours an employee works, the lower his regular rate will be and the

less he will receive per overtime hour .” Condo v. Sysco Corp

., 1 F.3d at 605. But this is

in the nature of any arrangement in which the rate of compensation rises or falls as a

function of the amount of time that it takes to do the job

. See Overnight Motor Transp.

Co. v. Missel

, 316 U.S. 572, 580 (1942) (recognizing that, when an employee is paid a7

weekly wage but works variable or fluctuating ho urs, “the longer the hours the less the

rate and the pay per hour”).

Maryland has not adopted a statute or regulation that, like 29 C.F.R. § 778.112

,

expressly instructs employers how to compute overtime compensation for day

- rate

employees. This case requires us to examine the implications of the absence of any such

statute or regulation. Does it mean that Maryland law forbids employers from using the

federal regulation in computing overtime compensation for employees who are paid a day

rate and that employers must use some other formula

, more advantageous to employees ?

Or is the federal regulation persuasive authority as to how employers must compute

overtime compensation under the related provisions of Maryland law?

A NALYSIS

Maryland appellate courts have said that the Maryland Wage and Hour Law is the

“State parallel” to the Fair Labor Standards Act ( Newell v. Runnels

, 407 Md. 578, 649

(2009 ) ; Friolo v. Frankel

, 373 Md. 501, 513 (2003) ) and “the state’s equivalent”

( Campusano v. Lusitano Constr. LLC

, 208 Md. App. 29, 37 (2012)) of the federal statute

.

See also Friolo v. Frankel

, 438 Md. 304, 307 (2014) (describing the Maryland Wage and

Hour law as “t he Maryland counterpart to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ”); Friolo

v. Frankel

, 373 Md. at 515 (observing that “[t] he Wage and Hour Law shares the

benevolent purpose of its Federal partner, the Fair Labor Standards Act ”). Thus, for

example, in deciding whether a defendant was an “employer” for purposes of the

Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Court of Appeals expressly adopted the four

- factor8

“economic reality” test that federal courts use to determine whether a person is an

“employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Newell v. Runnells

, 407 Md. at 649

- 53.

Federal courts, applying Maryland law, have also recognized the similarity

between the State and federal statutes

. See

, e.g

., Schilling v. Schmidt Baking Co

., 876

F.3d 596, 603 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating that “ [ t ] he [Fair Labor Standards Act] and the

Maryland statutory schemes are largely congruent, and ordinarily claims brought

pursuant to the [Maryland Wage and Hour Law] succeed or fail together with claims

brought under the [Fair Labor Standards Act]”) ; Mould v. NJG Food Serv., Inc

., 37 F.

Supp. 3d 762, 774 (D. Md. 2014) (holding that proof of a violation of the Fair Labor

Standards Act amounted to proof of a violation of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law,

where the pertinent language of the Maryland statute was “nearly identical” to that of th e

federal statute); Brown v. White’s Ferry, Inc

., 280 F.R.D. 238, 24 2 (D. Md. 2012) (stating

that the Maryland Wage and Hour claim in that case st ood or f e ll on the success of the

Fair Labor Standards Act claim); Turner v. Human Genome Sci

. , Inc

., 292 F. S upp. 2d

738, 744 (D. Md. 2003) (stating that because the requirements of the state law “ mirror

those of the federal law ,” the state

- law claim in that case “ stands or falls on the success ”

of the federal claim )

.

I t is true that, i n some instances, the language of the Maryland statute or

regulation s may diverge from that of its federal counterpart

, so that State and federal law

lead to different results

. For example, the time spent commuting to and from work is not

compensable under federal law, but it may be compensable under a COMAR regulation

that applies to certain State employees who travel between home and a work site other9

than the office. Comptroller v. Miller

, 169 Md. App. 321, 351

- 54 (2006)

, aff’d

, 398 Md.

272 (2007)

. On the other hand, the United States district court has held that a local

government employee can bring a claim for overtime compensation under federal law but

not under State law

, because a governmental unit is not an “employer” with in the

meaning of LE § 3

- 401

. See Koelker v. Mayor & City Council of Cumberland

, 599 F.

Supp. 2d 624, 638

- 39 (D. Md. 2009).

In this case, the relevant provisions are substantially similar under both State and

federal law. LE § 3

- 415(a) generally requires employers to pay an “overtime wage of at

least 1.5 times the usual hourly wage .” (Emphasis added.) COMAR 09.12.41.14.B

implements that r equirement by directing that “[c]ompensation for hours worked in

excess of 40 hours per workweek is computed at 1

- 1/2 times the regular hourly rate

, ”

which COMAR 09.12.41.19.A defines as “ the usual hourly rate .” (Emphasis added.)

The Fair Labor Standards Act is to similar effect, in that it generally requires employers

to pay overtime compensation “at a rate not less than one and one

- half times the regular

rate ” at which the employee is employed for every hour worked in excess of 40. 29

U.S.C. § 207(a)(2 )(C). (Emphasis added.) The parties have given us no reason to

conclude that “the regular rate” in the federal statute means something different from the

“usual hourly wage” in the Maryland statute or the “regular ” or “ usual ” “ hourly rate ” in

the COMAR regulation s

.

In 29 C.F.R. § 778.112, the federal regulation concerning the computation of

overtime compensation for employees who are paid a day rate, the Department of Labor

interpreted the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It has been held that the10

regulation is a permissible interpretation of the Act and, hence, that it is entitled to

judicial deference. Dufrene v. Brow n ing

- Ferris, Inc

., 207 F.3d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 2000).

Because the Maryland statute is the counterpart to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the

federal regulation is, therefore, persuasive authority as to the correct interpretation of

Maryland law

. See Immanuel v. Comptroller

, 449 Md. 76, 89 (2016) (stating that

interpretations of the federal Freedom of Information Act were per suasive authority in

interpreting the State counterpart, the Public Information Act)

. The persuasive effect of

the federal regulation is only enhanced because it has been in effect for half a century and

has undoubtedly been relied upon by numerous employ ers in Maryland during that time

.

See Maryland Office of People’s Counsel v. Maryland Pub. Serv. Comm’n

, 226 Md. App.

483, 501 (2016) (noting that the relevant factors in deciding the weight given to an

agency’s interpretation of a statute include “whethe r the interpretation ‘has been applied

consistently and for a long period of time’”) (quoting Office of People’s Counsel v.

Maryland Pub. Serv. Comm’n

, 355 Md. 1, 17 (1999)).

We see no basis in the language of the Maryland statutes or regulations to

concl ude that Maryland law prohibits employers from relying on the federal regulation to

compute overtime compensation for employees who are paid a day rate

. When the

employer pays the employee by the day

, the federal regulation generates the equivalent of

“ an overtime wage of at least 1.5 times the usual hourly wage,” as required by LE § 3

-

415(a). It does so because the day rate pays the employees 100 percent of the regular

hourly rate for all of their hours, the overtime ones included

. Du f rene v. Brow n ing

F erris, Inc

., 994 F. Supp. at 753. To ensure that the employees receive the remaining .511

times the usual hourly wage, the employer need pay only one

- half (or 50 percent) of the

regular hourly rate for the hours worked in excess of 40. Id. An employer, therefore,

does not violate the Maryland Wage and Hour Law if it correctly employs 29 C.F.R. §

778.112 to calculate the overtime compensation that it owes to employees who are paid a

day rate.

In advocating a contrary conclusion, Poe princi pally argues that because Maryland

has not expressly adopted 29 C.F.R. § 778.112

, Maryland law prohibits the use of that

formula. He is incorrect. The federal regulation interprets the requirements of a federal

statute that parallels a Maryland statute o n exactly the same subject. The federal

regulation, therefore, informs the analysis of what the Maryland statute means.

Poe also argues that Maryland law cannot parallel the federal regulation because

Maryland has no comparable regulation. It is, howev er, unnecessary for Maryland to

adopt a regulation that duplicates the federal regulation for the federal regulation to assist

in the interpretation of what Maryland law require s. Once again, the federal regulation is

a permissible interpretation of the F air Labor Standards Act and, as such, is entitled to

judicial deference as to the meaning of that Act. In this case, the relevant provisions of

the Fair Labor Standards Act mirror those of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Therefore, the federal regulation interpreting the federal statute, even if not controlling,

deserves consideration when a court interprets the Maryland statute. The federal

regulation can shed light on the meaning of the Maryland statute even if Maryland has

adopted no comparable regulation.12

Poe goes on to argue that the General Assembly has not authorized the

Commissioner of Labor and Industry to adopt a regulation like the federal day

- rate

regulation. He relies upon LE § 3

- 410, which states that, “[i] n addition to any regulation

specifically required by this subtitle, regulations that the Commissioner adopts to carry

out this subtitle may include ” a number of enumerated topics other than overtime

compensation fo r employees who are paid a day rate. 1

It is highly debatable whether the relevant language in § 3

- 410 (“may include”)

actually limits the Commissioner’s abilities in the way that Poe posits. See Md. Code

( 2014, 2019 Repl. Vol. ), § 1

- 110 of the General Provisions Article (stating that

“‘ [ i ] ncludes ’ or ‘ including ’ means includes or including by way of illustration and not by

way of limitation []”). Indeed, even though § 3

- 410 does not expressly authorize a

1 In full, § 3

- 410 states:

In addition to any regulation specifically required by this subtitle,

regulations that the Commissioner adopts to carry out this subtitle may

include:

(1) definitions of the terms “administrative capacity” “executive

capacity

, ” “professional capacity

, ” and “outside salesman”;

(2) a scale of wages that is sui table for learners and apprentices but

is at least 80% of the minimum wage under this subtitle; and

(3) a wage for a special case or class of case if the Commissioner

finds the wage appropriate to:

(i) avoid undue hardship;

(ii) prevent the curtailment of employment opportunity; and

(iii) safeguard the minimum wage under this subtitle.13

regulation concerning the method for computing th e “ usual hourly wage” in LE § 3

-

415(a), the Commissioner has adopted a regulation that largely follows the federal

formula on that subject. Compare COMAR 09.12.41.19.B (stating that “[t]he regular

hourly rate is determined by dividing the total compensati on for employment in any

workweek by the total number of hours worked in that workweek [] ” )

, with 29 C.F.R. §

778.112 (stating that the “regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at

such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually

worked [] ” ). But even if the Commissioner were somehow prohibited from adopting a

regulation concerning the computation of overtime compensation for employees who are

paid a day rate, employers, employees, litigants, and courts could still look to the federal

regulation

, as we have, for persuasive authority as to how to interpret the analogous

Maryland statutes on that subject.

Poe cites a number of Pennsylvania cases concerning the computation of overtime

compensation for emplo yees who work a fluctuating workweek (i.e., employees who

receive a fixed weekly salary, but do not work a fixed number of hours in any given

week)

. Verderame v. RadioShack Corp

., 31 F. Supp. 3d 702, 703

- 05 (E.D. Pa. 2014);

Foster v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc

., 285 F.R.D. 343, 345

- 46 (W.D. Pa. 2012); Cerutti v.

Frito Lay, Inc

., 777 F. Supp. 2d 920, 945 (W.D. Pa. 2011) ; see also Chevalier v. Gen eral

Nutrition Ctrs

. , Inc

., 177 A.3d 280 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal granted

, 189 A.3d 386

(2018)

. Under a regulatio n interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act, the overtime

premium for these employees is calculated in the same way as it is for employees who are

paid a day rate: the employee must receive “extra compensation, in addition to such14

salary, for all overtime hours worked at a rate not less than one

- half his regular rate of

pay.” 29 C

. F

. R

. § 778.114(a). The Pennsylvania courts have held, however, that that

federal regulation “cannot be reconciled” with Pennsylvania law. See

, e.g

., Verderame v.

RadioShack Corp

., 31 F. Supp. 3d at 707. In reaching that decision, the court s have

reasoned that a Pennsylvania regulation permits the computation of overtime at half the

regular rate of pay in some cases (including the case of employees who are paid a day

rate), but not in the case of employees who work a fluctuating workweek. Id. Because

the regulators have expressly authorized th e use of the federal formula in some

circumstances but not in others, the court s infer that the formula is prohibited w here it ha s

not been expressly authorized. Id. ( citing Foster v. Kraft Food Glob al

, Inc.

, 285 F.R.D.

at 345). We decline to follow the Pennsylvania decisions

, because they are based on the

unique regulatory structure of Pennsylvania law. 2

Poe is circumspect about his alternative method for computing overtime

compensation and about how it comports with the Maryland statute s and regulation s

. In

one instance, he inflates his “total compensation” by including the disputed amount of

overtime compensation that the employer already paid. In so doing, he awards himself

overtime on overtime, a concept that the General Assembly could not have inte nded. See

Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron

, 334 U.S. at 464 (stating that “[t]o permit overtime

2 Both parties cite a number of unreported federal decisions in support of their

positions

. We do not consider those decisions, because “‘it is the policy of this Cour t in

its opinions not to cite for persuasive value any unreported federal or state court

opinion. ’ ” Margolis v. Sandy Spring Bank , 221 Md. App. 703, 718 n.10 (2015) ( quoting

Kendall v. Howard County , 204 Md. App. 440, 445 n.1, aff ’ d , 431 Md. 590 (2013) ).15

premium to enter into the computation of the regular rate would be to allow overtime

premium on overtime premium

— a pyramiding that Congress could not have

inte nded[] ” ). In another instance, his computation of 15 0 percent of the usual hourly rate

ignores the fact that the day rate has already compensated him for 100 percent of the

usual hourly rate for all of the hours that he worked, including the hours in exce ss of 40.

By adding another 100 percent to the 10 0 percent that he has already received

, Poe

overstate s the amount of the overtime compensation to which he is entitled under

Maryland law.

In summary, we are unpersuaded by Poe’s arguments that Maryland law tacitly

forbids Maryland employers from relying on 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 in computing the

amount of overtime compensation that they owe to employees who are paid a day rate.

We hold that the federal regulation

, which interpret s the requirements of the Fair Labor

Standards Act, is consistent with the requirements of the analogous provisions in the

Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the regulations adopted thereunder

. Consequently,

we affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of the employer, IESI, and against

Poe.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY

AFFI R MED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY

APPELLANT.