IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30651

Summary Calendar

NEAL P. GOULAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LAGRECA SERVICES, INCORPORATED, doing business as LaGreca 

Transportation; CHARLES P. LAGRECA, JR., individually and on behalf of 

said entities as owner,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Lousiana

USDC No. 2:12-CV-898

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-appellant Neal P. Goulas brought this suit charging his former 

employer, defendant-appellees LaGreca Services, Inc. (d/b/a LaGreca 

Transportation) and Charles P. LaGreca, Jr., with underpaying him in 

violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) overtime pay 

requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). On summary judgment, the district 

* 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

February 26, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30651 Document: 00512544923 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2014
No. 13-30651

court held that the FLSA’s two-year, rather than three-year, statute of 

limitations applied because Goulas had not presented evidence sufficient to 

create a factual dispute as to whether there was a “willful violation” of the 

FLSA. See id. § 255(a). Then, after a bench trial, the district court held that 

there was no FLSA violation at all because Goulas was paid all of the overtime 

compensation that was due to him. Goulas appeals both determinations.

As for the statute-of-limitations issue, we agree with the district court 

that Goulas failed to present evidence creating a factual dispute regarding

whether there was a “willful violation” of the FLSA. Goulas presented evidence 

that he was paid $10 per hour for forty hours of work and $30 per hour for 

additional hours of work each week and he contended that such pay constitutes 

the sort of “split-day” pay plan forbidden by the FLSA under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 778.501 and Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U.S. 37 (1944). The district 

court determined correctly that Goulas’s evidence did not show such an 

impermissible “split-day” pay plan.

After the bench trial, the district court found that Goulas was paid “an 

hourly rate for hours up to 40 and a triple-time hourly rate for hours above 40,” 

and the district court “[saw] no reason to doubt the honesty of that scheme.” 

The district court further found that, based on such rate, Goulas was paid all 

of the overtime compensation that was due. Goulas has shown no error,

neither legal nor factual, with the district court’s judgment.1

The district court is AFFIRMED.

1 Goulas also contends that the district court erred in failing to determine whether he 

was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement because he was a “bona fide 

executive” at the company. 29 U.SC. § 213(a)(1). Because the district court determined that 

Goulas was paid all of the overtime pay that was due, there was no need to also determine 

whether Goulas was exempt from the overtime pay entitlement to begin with. The district 

court did not err.

2

 

 Case: 13-30651 Document: 00512544923 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2014