FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 29, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15931

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 2 6 9 - C V- OR L - 2 8 - J GG I S R A E L A L V A R E Z P E R E Z , P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S A N F O R D - O R L A N D O K E N N E L C L U B , I N C ., C O L L I N S & C O L L I N S , d .b .a . C C C R a c in g , D efen d an t s-A p p el l an t s C r o s s - A p p e lle e s , J A C K C O L L I N S , D e f e n d a n t C r o s s - A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 29, 2008)2

B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s appe a l a nd c r os s - appe a l a r i s e f r om a n ove r t i m e w a ge s l a w s ui tbr ought un der the F ai r L abor S t andards A ct , 29 U . S . C . §§ 20 1– 19 , by Is ra el A l vare z P er ez a g a in s t S a n f

o r d - O r la n d o K e n n e l C lu b , I n c ., C o llin s & C o llin s P a r tn e r s h ip d /b /a C C C R a c i ng, a nd J a c k C ol l i ns , S r . T he j udgm e ntw i ndi ng up the l i t i ga t i on i n the di stri ctcourtfoun d K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng , bu tno tC ol l i ns, S r. , l i abl e f or a vi ol a t i on of

the F L S A ove r t i m e w a ge s pr ovi s i on a nd a w a r de d da m a ge s , butnot l i qui da t e d da m a ge s , t o P e r e z . A l l of the pa r t i e s e xc e ptC ol l i ns , S r . w e r e unhappy w ith o n e o rm o r e p a r ts o f th e ju d g m e n t. K e n n e l C lu b a n d C C C R a c in g h a v e ap p e a le d f r o m th e ju d g m e n t in s o f a ra s it foun d them l i abl e on the ov ert i m e c l ai m . T hey c on t end thatthe di stri ctcourt shou l d h ave grant ed them j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw on the theory thatthey a re se para t e e st abl i shm ent s, w hi ch w ou l d m ea n thatea ch of them w as a s ea sonal o p e r a tio n q u a lif

y in g f o rth e r e c r e a tio n a l a n d a m u s e m e n t e x e m p tio n in 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 1 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) . P e r e z ha s c r os s - appe a l e d f r om tw o a s pe c t s of

the j udgm e nt . H e c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng C ol l i ns , S r . j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w on the the ory tha the w a s notP e r e z ’ s e m pl oy e r . H e a l s o c ont e nds tha ti n l i ghtof the3

ju ry ’s f in d in g f o rs ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s p u rp o s e s th a t th e v io la tio n s w e r e w illf u l, it w a s e rr orf

orthe c our tt o the n f

i nd tha tthe de f

e nda nt s ha d a c t e d i n good f a i th, th e r e b y p r e c lu d in g liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . I. F r om 1955 thr ough 2001, K e nne l C l ub ope r a t e d a w i nt e rgr e y hound r a c i ng se as on fr om N ov em ber throu gh M ayof ea ch ye arati t s L on gw oo d fac i l i ty nea r O r la n d o , F lo r id a . A t th a t tim e , th e r e w a s a n o th e rf a c ility

— th e S e m in o le R a c e w a y— l oc a t e d j us ttw o orthr e e m i l e s a w a y f r om K e nne l C l ub tha tope r a t e d a s um m e rs e a s on of

gr e y hound r a c i ng. I n N ove m be r2000 J a c k C ol l i ns , J r . , on b eh alf o f K en n el C lu b , i n it iated d iscu ss io n s w ith S em in o le R ac ew ay ’s m a n a g e m e n t, in q u ir in g w h e th e rS e m in o le w o u ld s e ll its s u m m e rr a c in g p e rm it to K e nne l C l ub. S e m i nol e w a nt e d t o ge toutof the gr e y hound r a c i ng bus i ne s s , but som e K ennel C l ub shar ehol ders re fuse d t o h el p C ol l i ns, S r. pu tup the neces sa ry c ap ita l to f

in a n c e th e p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t. A s are sul t , C ol l i ns & C ol l i ns P artners hi p p urchas ed S em i no l e’ s s um m er r a c i ng pe rm i tw i th the pe r s ona l f unds of J a c k C ol l i ns , S r . , w ho w a s a n of f i c e ra nd m a j or i ty s ha r e hol de rof

both K e nne l C l ub a nd C ol l i ns & C ol l i ns P a r tne r s hi p. T he pur c ha s e a dde d a s um m e rr a c e s e a s on a tK e nne l C l ub’ s f a c i l i ty t o the w i nt e rone a lr e a d y b e in g c o n d u c te d th e r e . A r o u n d th e s a m e tim e , K e n n e l C lu b r e g is te r e d w ith4

the D e pa r tm e ntof

S t a t e the na m e C ol l i ns & C ol l i ns P a r tne r s hi p d/b/ a C C C R a c i ng. I n M a y 2 0 0 1 C C C R a c in g e n te r e d in to a n a g r e e m e n t w ith K e n n e l C lu b to u s e its f a c ility d u r in g th e s u m m e rm o n th s . I n tha ta gr e e m e ntK e nne l C l ub a uthor i z e d C C C R a c i ng t o ope r a t e a s um m e rs e a s on of gr e y hound r a c i ng a tthe L on gw oo d fac i l i ty f

rom M aythrou gh O ct ob erof ea ch ye ar . D uri ng thatsum m er s e a s on, C C C R a c i ng w oul d be r e s pons i bl e f orthe ope r a t i ons of

the L ongw ood f a c ility : th e “g e n e r a l o p e r a tio n a l a c tiv itie s ,” “m a rk e tin g a c tiv itie s ,” a n d a ll

“ adm i ni stra t i ve ac t i vi t i es , i ncl ud i ng ac coun t i ng , l egal , and com pl i ance ac t i vi t i es . ” A s c on si dera t i on , the agree m entent i t l ed K ennel C l ub “ t o rec ei ve O ne and O neH a l f ( 1 . 5 % ) o f

th e a g g r e g a t e ‘ p a r i - mu tu e l w a g e r i n g h a n d l e ’ ” e a rn e d b y CCC R a c in g d u r in g e a c h s u m m e rs e a s o n . T h a t p e r c e n ta g e a m o u n te d to $ 3 9 8 ,8 2 1 in 2 0 0 2 a n d $ 3 8 8 ,0 4 4 in 2 0 0 3 . K e nne l C l ub c ont i nue d c onduc t i ng w i nt e rr a c e m e e t s a tthe L ongw ood f a c i l i ty , w hi l e C C C R a c i ng be ga n c onduc t i ng s um m e rr a c e m e e t s the r e . A l though K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng m ai nt ai ned separ at e bank accounts , payr ol l s, t ax i d en t i fi cat i o n n u m b ers, an d p erm i t s, th e co m p an i es d i d sh are th e sam e faci l i ty, t el epho ne nu m ber, cr edi tca rd, and g ener al l i abi l i ty i nsurance pol i cy . M on ey c om i ng f r om K e nne l C l ub’ s ope r a t i ng a c c ount s w a s a l s o r e c or de d a s a pa y abl e on C C C R a c in g ’s b o o k s , a n d C C C R a c in g c o n tr o lle d K e n n e l C lu b ’s o p e r a tin g c a s h .5

A s f orthe m a na ge m e ntof

the L ongw ood f

a c i l i ty , a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng na m e d J a c k C ol l i ns , S r . a s the m a na gi ng a ge ntof th e f a c ility . D e s p ite h is o f

f ic ia l p o s itio n a n d b e in g k n o w n a s “th e h e a d b o s s ,” C ol l i ns, S r. ’ s s on s had ac tual l y run the bu si ness for hi m si nce he s uffe re d a heart a tta c k in 1 9 9 8 . Ja ck C ol l i ns, Jr . , ra ther than h i s f ather, had u l t i m at e autho ri ty over h ir in g a n d f

ir in g d e c is io n s . In fa ct , C ol l i ns, S r. had v i si t ed the fa ci l i ty onl y once a y e a rs i nc e hi s he a r ta tt a c k. H e ha d nott a ke n pa r ti n the da y - t o- da y ope r a t i ons of the f a c i l i ty s i nc e 1998, norha d he be e n i nvol ve d i n the hi r i ng a nd f i r i ng of e m pl oy e e s , e m pl oy e e a s s i gnm e nt s , de t e rm i ni ng e m pl oy e e c om pe ns a t i on, or s u p e rv is in g e m p lo y e e s . O nce the L on gw oo d fac i l i ty began op er at i ng ye ar -r ou nd , m any e m pl oyee s w ho w orke d f

orK e nne l C l ub dur i ng the w i nt e rr a c e s e a s ons c ont i nue d t o w ork f or C C C R a c in g d u r in g th e n e w s u m m e rs e a s o n s . In fa ct , a m aj ori ty of the em pl oyee s a t K e n n e l C lu b a n d C C C R a c in g w o rk e d f o rb o th c o m p a n ie s . T hese em pl oyee s perf orm ed the sa m e w ork yea r- roun d, w i th the on l y not abl e di ff er ence bei ng that th e y r e c e iv e d s e p a r a te p a y c h e c k s f r o m th e tw o e n titie s f

o re a c h h a lf

o f th e y e a r . P er ez , w ho w orked m ai nt enance a tthe ra ce tra ck fa ci l i ty f or nearl y tw o yea rs , w as one of the s e e m pl oy e e s . H e ge ne r a l l y r e c e i ve d s e pa r a t e t a x f orm s a nd pa y c he c ks f r o m K e n n e l C lu b a n d C C C R a c in g . O n one oc c a s i on, how e ve r , P e r e z w a s pa i d by6

K e nne l C l ub dur i ng a pe r i od i n w hi c h C C C R a c i ng w a s ope r a t i ng the L ongw ood f a c ility . I n F e brua ry 2005 P e r e z f i l e d a c om pl a i nti n the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da a g a in s t b o th K e n n e l C lu b a n d J a c k C o llin s , S r ., w h ic h P e r e z la te ra m e n d e d to in c lu d e C C C R a c in g a s a n a d d itio n a l d e f e n d a n t. T h e c o m p la in t c o n te n d e d th a t a ll of the de f e nda nt s w e r e P e r e z ’ s f

orm e re m pl oy e r s a nd ha d “ r e pe a t e dl y a nd w i l l f ul l y ” vi ol a t e d 29 U . S . C . § 207 “ by f a i l i ng t o c om pe ns a t e [ hi m ] a ta r a t e not l e s s tha n one a nd one - ha l f t i m e s hi s r e gul a rr a t e a tw hi c h he w a s e m pl oy e d f or w orkw ee ks l on ger than (40 ) hou rs . ” H e a s k e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts b e h e ld jo in tly and severa l l y l i abl e f

or un pai d o vert i m e w ages and for an addit i on al am ou ntas l i q u i d at ed d am ag es. T he de f e nda nt s a ns w e r e d P e r e z ’ s c om pl a i ntby a s s e r t i ng tha tthe y w e r e not hi s e m pl oyer s und erthe F L S A , and thathi s c l ai m s w er e barre d b y the re cr ea t i on al a nd a m us e m e nte xe m pt i on i n 29 U . S . C . § 213( a ) ( 3) un der w hatthey c hara ct er i ze d as th e “ si x -m o n th recei p t s t estan d / o r th e seaso n al o p erat i o n t est . ” T h ey al so a s s e r te d th a t th e c la im s w e r e “b a rr e d , in w h o le o rin p a r t, b y th e ap p lic ab le s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s ,” a n d th a t “[ a ]ll a c tio n s ta k e n b y th e D e f e n d a n ts w ith r e s p e c t to its [si c] rel at i o n sh i p w i th [P erez] w ere i n g o o d fai th an d b ased o n l eg i t i m at e b u si n ess i nt er es t s. ”Actually, what happened at the end of the Pere z’s case is that the district cour t did not 1 permit the def

endants to orally

make or discuss any

motion: “Counsel, you can reser ve. Reserveyour motions. All right. Call your first witness.” After the def ense rested, the defendants ag ain moved for judgment as a matter

of law, f iling a written motion in open court. The district cour

t reser ved rulingon the motion to give Perez an opportunity to brief the issue. Th efo llo wingmor

ning , th edis tric t c ourt

denie d th emotion . Thede fendantsdid wh at th ey

c ould to preser ve the issues raised in their motion, and Perez does not contend to the c ontrary . 7 T he di stri ctcourtcond uct ed a tw o-day j ury tri al i n S ept em ber 200 6. A ft er the c onc l us i on of

P e r e z ’ s c a s e , the de f

e nda nt s m ove d f

orj udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w. T he di s tr i c tc our tr e s e rve d j udgm e nton tha tm ot i on a nd ul t i m a t e l y s e ntthe 1 ca se t o the j ury, w hi ch re turned a verdi cti n favor of P er ez agai nstal l three d e f e n d a n ts . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the j ury f

ound tha te a c h of

the de f e nda nt s w a s not

“ e xe m ptf

r om the [ F L S A ] thr ough the s e a s ona l ope r a t i on e xe m pt i on orthe s i xm onth r e c e i pt s t e s t , ” tha tC ol l i ns , S r . w a s P e r e z ’ s e m pl oy e r , a nd tha te a c h of the defe nd ant s had fa i l ed t o p ayP er ez the ov ert i m e c om pensat i on t o w hi ch he w as e n title d b y la w . O n the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons i s s ue , the j ury f ound tha tthe defe nd ant s “ ei ther knew or show ed re ckl es s di sr egar d for w hether i t s c on du ctw as p r o h ib ite d b y th e F L S A ,” m e a n in g th a t th e y a c te d w illf u lly . F ol l ow i ng the j ury ’ s ve r di c t , the de f e nda nt s r e ne w e d the i rm ot i ons f or j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw and al so m ov ed for anew tri al . T he di stri ctcourt gr a nt e d j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w t o C ol l i ns , S r . c onc l udi ng tha the w a s not P e r e z ’ s e m pl oy e runde rthe F L S A be c a us e , a l though he “ m a y ha ve ow ne d the c om pa ny a nd he m a y ha ve ha d c ontr ol a s the ow ne r , ” he di d notha ve the de a l i ngs8

w i th e m pl oy e e s tha tthe F L S A r e qui r e s . A s t o K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng, the d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e irm o tio n s . A l though the di s tr i c tc our ta l l ow e d the j ury ’ s ve r di c ta ga i ns tK e nne l C l ub an d C C C R aci n g t o st an d , i td en i ed P erez’s m o t i o n fo r l i q u i d at ed d am ag es. A s a b a s i s f o rth a td e n i a l , th e c o u r tr e l i e d o n i t s o w n f i n d i n g th a tK e n n e l Cl u b a n d CCC R a c i ng ha d s oughta dvi c e r e ga r di ng the e xe m pt i on i s s ue f r om both a n a tt orne y a nd thei r pay rol l com pany. T he courtw as sa t i sf i ed thatthi s w as enou gh t o sho w that th ey h ad act ed i n g o o d fai th fo r p u rp o ses o f 2 9 U . S . C . § 2 6 0 , ev en th o u g h th e j u ry, i n c onne c t i on w i th the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons i s s ue , ha d f

ound tha tthe i rvi ol a t i ons of the F L S A had b ee n w i l l ful (“ ei ther knew or show ed re ckl es s di sr egar d for w hether its c o n d u c t w a s p r o h ib ite d b y th e F L S A ” ) . T he c our te xpl a i ne d tha tthe i ncon si st encybetw ee n i t s f i nd i ng and the j ury’ s w as perm i tt ed because i tw as “w ith in th e C o u r t’s d o m a in , n o t th e ju ry ’s , to d e te rm in e w h e th e rD e f e n d a n ts e s tab lis h e d a g o o d f

a ith d e f e n s e ,” th e r e b y p r e c lu d in g liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng f i l e d thi s appe a l . T he y c ont e nd tha tthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng thei r m ot i on s f or j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw b e c a u s e th e y a r e e x e m p t f r o m th e o v e r tim e r e q u ir e m e n t o f th e F L S A p u r s u a n t to th e recreati o n al an d am u sem en tex em p t i o n i n 2 9 U . S . C . § 2 1 3 (a)(3 ). T h ey al so cont end thatthere i s i nsuffi ci entevi dence i n the re cord t o sup po rtthe j ury’ s ver di ct9

a ga i ns tthe m i n l i ghtof

the i re vi de nc e on the e xe m pt i on i s s ue . P e r e z ha s f i l e d a cr o ss -a p p ea l, co n ten d in g th at th e d istrict co u rt er re d b o th in g ra n ti n g C o ll in s, S r.’s r e ne w e d m ot i on f

orj udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w a nd i n de ny i ng P e r e z a n a w a r d of liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . II. C ongr e s s e na c t e d the F L S A “ i n or de rt o e l i m i na t e ‘ l aborc ondi t i ons de tr i m e nt a l t o the m a i nt e na nc e of the m i ni m um s t a nda r d of l i vi ng ne c e s s a ry f

or h eal th , effi ci en cy, an d g en eral w el l -b ei n g o f w o rk ers. ’ ” A n t en o r v . D & S F arm s, 8 8 F . 3 d 9 2 5 , 9 2 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) (q u o t i n g 2 9 U . S . C . § § 2 0 2 (a) & (b )). T o th o se ends, 29 U . S . C . § 2 07 re qu i re s thatem pl oyer s payt i m e a nd a hal f f or tho se ho urs th a ta n e mp l o y e e w o rk s i n e x c e s s o f th e s t a n d a r d f

o r ty h o u rw o rk w e e k . 2 9 U . S. C. § 2 0 7 (a )( 1 ). S ec ti o n 2 1 3 , h o w ev er , l ists a h o st o f e x em p ti o n s to th e F L S A ’s m i ni m um w a ge a nd m a xi m um hourr e qui r e m e nt s . S e e i d. § 213. T he e xe m pt i ons

“ a r e t o be c ons true d na rr ow l y , ” a nd the e m pl oy e rs houl de r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha ti ti s e nt i t l e d t o a n e xe m pt i on. E va ns v. M c C l a i n of G a . , I nc . , 131 F .3 d 9 5 7 , 9 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e recreati o n al an d am u sem en tex em p t i o n ati ssu e i n th i s case p ro v i d es: T h e p r o v is io n s o f

. . . s e c tio n 2 0 7 o f

th is title s h a ll n o t ap p ly w ith re spec tt o . . . any e m pl oyee em pl oyed by an es t abl i shm entw hi ch i s a n am usem entor re cr ea t i on al e s tab lis h m e n t . . . if ( A ) it d o e s n o t o p e r a te f orm or e tha n s e ve n m onths i n a ny c a l e nda ry e a r , or( B ) dur i ng the10

prec edi ng ca l endar y ea r, i t s a vera ge re ce i pt s f or any s i x m on ths of such y e a rw e r e notm or e tha n 33 1/ 3 pe rc e ntum of i t s a ve r a ge r e c e i pt s f

or th e o th e rs ix m o n th s o f

s u c h y e a r. . . . 29 U . S . C . §§ 21 3(a) , (a )( 3). U nd erthatcontrol l i ng prov i si on , there fore , an e m pl oy e rqua l i f

i e s f ore xe m pt i on i f

i ti s a r e c r e a t i ona l a nd a m us e m e nt e s t abl i s hm e nta nd i ta l s o s a t i s f i e s e i the rthe s e a s ona l ope r a t i on t e s torthe s i xm o n th r e c e ip ts te s t. S e e id . N o one que s t i ons tha tK e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng a r e i n the r e c r e a t i on or a m u s e m e n t b u s in e s s . A n d n o o n e d is p u te s th a t if th e y a r e c o n s id e r e d a s s e p a r a te es t abl i shm ent s, ea ch of them qu al i fi es for the § 2 13 (a )( 3) exem pt i on because e ac h o n e o p e r a te s f

o rle s s th a n s e v e n m o n th s a y e a ra n d a ls o s a tis f ie s th e s ix - m o n th re ce i pt s t es t . L i kew i se , no on e di sput es thati f K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng ar e gr oupe d t oge the ra nd c ons i de r e d a s one e s t abl i s hm e nt , the c om bi ne d e nt i ty i s not e n title d to th e b e n e f

it o f th e § 2 1 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) e x e m p tio n , b e c a u s e c u m u la tiv e ly it ope r a t e s y e a r - r ound a nd f a i l s t o s a t i s f

y the s i x- m onth r e c e i pt s t e s t . T he di sa gree m enti s abo utw hether K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng shou l d b e c on si dere d a s o n e e s tab lis h m e n t o rtw o f o r§ 2 1 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) p u rp o s e s . T he a ns w e rde pe nds on w ha tc ons t i tut e s the “ e s t abl i s hm e nt ” unde rtha tpr ovi s i on, w hi c h “ i s a pr obl e m ofSee B onner v. Pricha rd, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)(adoptingas 2 binding prece dent in the Eleventh Circuit all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit announce d prior to October 1, 1981). 11 l aw t o b e dec i ded from al l the fa ct s i n [the] ca se , ” A cm e C ar& T ruck R ent al s, Inc. v. H oo per, 33 1 F . 2d 44 2, 44 4 (5th C i r. 19 64 ). 2 K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng c ont e nd tha tJ e f f e ry v. S a r a s ot a W hi t e S ox, Inc. , 64 F . 3d 59 0 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ) ( per c uri am ), supp ort s thei r posi t i on thatthey a re e x e m p t u n d e r§ 2 1 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) . I tdoe s not . I n tha tc a s e w e c onc l ude d tha ta m i nor l e a gue ba s e ba l l t e a m , w hi c h l e a s e d a f a c i l i ty t o us e dur i ng the m onths of s pr i ng tra i ni ng , w as exem ptas a r ec re at i on al and am usem entes t abl i shm entun der § 213( a ) ( 3) . I d. a t594–95. T ha tc a s e i nvol ve d a n i s s ue aboutthe s e a s ona l ope r a t i on te s t a n d h o w to ap p ly it in a s itu a tio n w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t w a s o n e s e p a r a te b u si n ess. I d . a t 5 9 4 ( s ta tin g th e is s u e a s “w h e th e ro rn o t D e f e n d a n t’s b u s in e s s is tru l y seaso n al ”). T h e Jeffery case d i d n o tp resen tth e p i v o t al i ssu e b efo re u s, w h ic h a r is e s f

r o m th e f a c t th a t K e n n e l C lu b a n d C C C R a c in g s h a r e a s in g le f a c ility a nd a r e c om m onl y ow ne d a nd c ontr ol l e d. B e c a us e the r e w a s no s i m i l a rtw o ve r s us one e s t abl i s hm e ntque s t i on i n J e f f e ry , tha tde c i s i on i s nothe l pf ul . T he t e xtof

the F L S A its e lf

is n o t h e lp f

u l e ith e r . A lth o u g h th e te rm “e s tab lis h m e n t” is u s e d in s e v e r a l d if

f e r e n t p r o v is io n s , n o w h e r e in th e A c t is it d e f in e d . Th e Su p r e me Co u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n A . H . Ph i l l i p s , I n c . v . W a l l i n g , 3 2 4 U . S. 49 0, 65 S . C t . 80 7 (19 45 ), i nt erpret ed an ear l i ervers i on of the re t ai l and servi ce12

es t abl i shm entexem pt i on , w hi ch w as then con t ai ned i n 2 9 U . S . C . § 2 13 (a )( 2). In doi ng s o, the C our tde f

i ne d a n “ e s t abl i s hm e nt ” a s “ a di s t i nc tphy s i c a l pl a c e of bus i ne s s , ” be c a us e tha ti s the w a y the t e rm i s or di na r i l y us e d i n bus i ne s s a nd go vernm ent . Id. at49 6, 65 S . C t . at81 0 (concl ud i ng thata c hai n o f grocery s t ores a nd i t s c e ntr a l w a r e hous e w e r e nota s i ngl e r e t a i l e s t abl i s hm e ntunde rthe r e t a i l a nd s e rvi c e e s t abl i s hm e nte xe m pt i on a nd, the r e f or e , w e r e bound by the pr ovi s i ons of th e F L S A ). T h e P h i l l i p s d efi n i t i o n i s refl ect ed i n th e C o d e o f F ed eral R eg u l at i o n s, w hi c h s t a t e s tha tge ne r a l l y i n the A c t“ the t e rm e s t abl i s hm e nt. . . r e f e r s t o a

‘ di st i nctph ys i ca l pl ac e of busi ness ’ ra ther than t o ‘ an ent i re bu si ness or ent erpri se ’ w hi ch m ayi ncl ud e s ever al se para t e pl ac es of bu si ness . ” 29 C . F . R . § 7 79 . 23 ; se e a ls o id . § 7 7 9 .2 0 3 . In M ar shal l v. S un di al A ss oci at es , L t d. , 58 8 F . 2d 12 0, 12 2 (5th C i r. 19 79 ), w e app l i ed the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s t ea chi ng s i n P hi l l i ps w hen w e i nt erpret ed the t erm “e s tab lis h m e n t” a s u s e d in th e h o te l e s tab lis h m e n t e x e m p tio n o f 2 9 U .S .C . § 213( b) ( 8) . O urc onc l us i on w a s tha t“ w he n a pa r tof a bus i ne s s c om pl e x s e e ks e x e m p tio n a s a s e p a r a te e s tab lis h m e n t it m u s t a t le a s t s h o w th a t it h a s a p h y s ic a lly s e p a r a te p la c e o f

b u s in e s s .” I d . As a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r tf

o ro u ri n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f

th e t e rm “ e s t ab l i s h m e n t , ” we c ite d in S u n d ia l to 2 9 C .F .R . § 7 7 9 .3 0 5 , w h ic h p r o v id e s in p e r tin e n t p a r t:13

A l tho ug h . . . tw o o r m ore departm ent s of abu si ness m ayconst i tut e a si ng l e e st abl i shm ent , tw o o r m ore physi ca l l y s epar at ed po rt i on s of a bus i ne s s though l oc a t e d on the s a m e pr e m i s e s , a nd e ve n unde rthe s a m e r oof

i n s om e c i r c um s t a nc e s m a y c ons t i tut e m or e tha n one e s t abl i s hm e ntf

orpurpos e s of

e xe m pt i ons . I n or de rt o e f f e c ts uc h a r e s u lt p h y s ic a l s e p a r a tio n is a p r e r e q u is ite . I n a d d itio n , th e p h y s ic a lly s e pa r a t e d por t i ons of

the bus i ne s s a l s o m us tbe e nga ge d i n ope r a t i ons w h i ch are fu n ct i o n al l y sep arat ed fro m each o th er. . . . In o th er w o rd s, [ a ] p o r tio n o f

a n e s tab lis h m e n t w o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d a s e p a r a te e s t abl i s hm e ntf

r om the unr e l a t e d por t i on f orthe purpos e of

the ex em p t i o n i f: (a) Iti s p h ysi cal l y sep arat ed fro m th e o th er act i v i t i es; a n d ( b ) it is f

u n c tio n a lly o p e r a te d a s a s e p a r a te u n it h a v in g s e p a r a te r e c or ds , a nd s e pa r a t e bookke e pi ng; a nd ( c ) the r e i s no i nt e r c ha nge of e m pl oy e e s be tw e e n the uni t s . T he r e qui r e m e nttha tthe r e be no i nt er change of em pl oyee s betw ee n the un i t s does notm ea n thatan em pl oyee of on e uni tm ayno tocca si on al l y, w hen ci rc um st ance s r e qui r e i t , r e nde rs om e he l p i n the othe runi t s ortha tone e m pl oy e e of one uni tm a y notbe tr a ns f e rr e d t o w ork i n the othe runi t . T he r e q u ir e m e n t h a s r e f

e r e n c e to th e in d is c r im in a te u s e o f th e e m p lo y e e in b o th u n i t s w i th o u treg ard t o th e seg reg at ed fu n ct i o n s o f su ch u n i t s. 29 C . F . R . § 779. 305; s e e S undi a l , 588 F . 2d a t123. W e s t a t e d tha t§ 779. 305 appl i e s notonl y t o the r e t a i l a nd s e rvi c e e s t abl i s hm e nte xe m pt i on, buta l s o t o a nu m ber of e xem pt i on s l i st ed i n 2 9 C . F . R . § 7 79 . 30 2, i ncl ud i ng the ho t el e s t abl i s hm e nte xe m pt i on. S undi a l , 588 F . 2d a t123 n. 2 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t§ 779. 305 is “to b e ap p lie d to a n u m b e ro f e x e m p tio n s in c lu d in g § 2 1 3 ( b ) ( 8 ) ” ) . B e c a u s e th e c o m p a n ie s in th e S u n d ia l c a s e w e r e “c o m p le te ly p h y s ic a lly i nt e r tw i ne d, ” w e de t e rm i ne d tha tthe y w e r e t o be tr e a t e d a s a s i ngl e e s t abl i s hm e nt de s pi t e the f

a c ttha tthe y m a i nt a i ne d s e pa r a t e bus i ne s s i de nt i t i e s , books , a nd p a y r o lls . I d . a t 1 2 3 . W e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th o s e f a c to r s m a y b e r e le v a n t in14

deci di ng the sc op e of a n est abl i shm enti n cert ai n ci rc um st ance s, bu texpl ai ned that

“ they onl y bec om e s i gn i fi ca nton ce the em pl oyerhas s ho w n thata di st i nctph ys i ca l e s t abl i s hm e nte xi s t s . ” I d. ; s e e a l s o M ont a l vo v. T ow e rL i f e B l dg. , 426 F . 2d 1135, 1 1 4 4

– 4 5 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 0 ) ( s ta tin g th a t “f u n c tio n a l u n ity ” is “n o rm a lly in v o k e d to s how tha ttw o orm or e pl a c e s of bus i ne s s w hi c h a r e phy s i c a l l y s e pa r a t e d s houl d be consi dere d a si ng l e e st abl i shm ent , ” buti s i napp ropri at e w here “ bu si ness ac t i vi t i es of a s i ngl e e nt e rpr i s e t a ke pl a c e w i thi n a s i ngl e di s t i nc tphy s i c a l pl a c e of bu si ness ”) . T he P hi l l i ps, S un di al , and M on t al vo deci si on s gov ern si tuat i on s w here there ar e tw o b usi ness op er at i on s bei ng cond uct ed atthe sa m e t i m e, w hi ch i s w hatea ch of thos e c a s e s i nvol ve d. I tm a ke s s e ns e tha ttw o bus i ne s s e s be i ng c onduc t e d a tthe s a m e t i m e a r e m or e l i ke l y t o be c ons i de r e d one e s t abl i s hm e nti f the y a r e a tthe s a m e p la c e . P h y s ic a l s e p a r a tio n is im p o r ta n t w h e n th e r e is n o s e p a r a tio n in tim e . W hen, ho w ever , bu si ness op er at i on s a re cond uct ed i n d i ff er entse as on s, ph ys i ca l s e pa r a t i on i s of

m uc h l e s s i m por t a nc e . A s the F i r s tC i r c ui tha s e xpl a i ne d: W hi l e “ phy s i c a l l oc a t i on” m a y be r e l e va nti n appl y i ng a n e xe m pt i on de pe ndi ng on the na tur e of a pa r t i c ul a rbus i ne s s ( s uc h a s w he the rthe em pl oyeri s are t ai l sa l es com pany), i thas l i tt l e t o d o w i th an e x e m p tio n b a s e d o n th e p e r io d s in w h ic h a b u s in e s s o p e r a te s . A c o m m o n p la c e o f

b u s in e s s a lo n e is p a r tic u la r ly in ap p o s ite to appl i ca t i on of an exem pt i on base d o n sea sonal i ty, as tw o sea sonal b u s i n e s s e s ma y , b y o p e r a t i n g a td i f f e r e n tt i me s , u t i l i z e th e s a me l oc a t i on w hi l e r e t a i ni ng the i ri nde pe nde nc e . S uc h a t e s ti n e f f e c tbe gs15

th e q u est i o n , b ecau se th e p o ssi b i l i ty rem ai n s th atth e tw o b u si n esses, b e in g in d e p e n d e n tly s e a s o n a l, a r e ab le to r e ta in th e irs e p a r a te i d en t i t i es n o tw i th st an d i n g co m m o n u se o f th e si n g l e faci l i ty. M ar shal l v. N ew H am pshi re JockeyC l ub , Inc. , 56 2 F . 2d 13 23 , 13 31 n. 3 (1stC i r. 1 9 7 7 ) . W h a t w e ta k e a w a y f

r o m o u rS u n d ia l d e c is io n is th a t w h ile 2 9 C .F .R . § 7 7 9 .3 0 5 ( “E x e m p tio n s f o rC e r ta in R e ta il o rS e rv ic e E s tab lis h m e n ts ” ) e x p lic itly appl i es t o the re t ai l and servi ce exem pt i on s, i t s three -r equi re m entdefi ni t i on of an es t abl i shm entm aybe bo rr ow ed t o d ef i ne es t abl i shm entfor purpo se s of other exem pt i on s. S ee S un di al , 58 8 F . 2d at12 3 n . 2 (concl ud i ng thati ti s “ t o b e app l i ed to a n u m b e ro f

e x e m p tio n s in c lu d in g § 2 1 3 ( b ) ( 8 ) ” ) . T h e F ir s t C ir c u it b o rr o w e d it for thatpu rpose i n the M ar shal l ca se , 56 2 F . 2d at13 29 , w hi ch i nv ol ved race tra ck f a c ts , a s o u rp r e s e n t c a s e d o e s . B ec ause 29 C . F . R . § 7 79 . 30 5 l i st s the three re qu i re m ent s i n the conj un ct i ve, K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng m ustsa t i sf y e ac h o f them i n o rdert o q ual i fyas s e pa r a t e e s t abl i s hm e nt s e nt i t l e d t o be ne f i tf r om the § 213( a ) ( 3) r e c r e a t i ona l a nd a m us e m e nte xe m pt i on. S e e a l s o G i l r e a th v. D a ni e l F une r a l H om e , I nc . , 421 F . 2d 50 4, 51 0 (8th C i r. 19 70 ) ( “ S i nce the three prer equi si t es of 29 C . F . R . § 7 79 . 30 5 are jo in e d in th e c o n

ju n c tiv e , th e d e f

e n d a n t c a n n o t p r e v a il o n its e x e m p tio n c la im w i tho utproo f of c on form i ty t o eac h requi re m ent . ”) .16

W h at ev er w e m i g h td eci d e ab o u tth e fi rstan d th i rd § 7 7 9 . 3 0 5 req u i rem en t s, K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng do no tm ee tthe se cond on e, w hi ch i s thatea ch bus i ne s s be “ f

unc t i ona l l y ope r a t e d a s a s e pa r a t e uni tha vi ng s e pa r a t e r e c or ds , a nd s e pa r a t e bookke e pi ng. ” 29 C . F . R . § 779. 305. A l though the i rs e pa r a t e ba nk a c c ount s , pa y r ol l s , t a x i de nt i f i c a t i on num be r s , a nd pe rm i t s s how tha tK e nne l C l ub a n d C C C R a c in g w e r e o r g a n iz e d a s d is tin c t e n titie s , th o s e f a c ts a r e n o t e n o u g h to e s t abl i s h tha tthe y w e r e ope r a t e d a s s e pa r a t e uni t s . T he l a ngua ge of the r e gul a t i on r e qui r e s bus i ne s s e s t o be “ f unc t i ona l l y ope r a t e d a s . . . s e pa r a t e uni t [ s ] ha vi ng se para t e r ec ords, and separ at e boo kk ee pi ng ” i n o rdert o q ual i fyas di st i nct e s t abl i s hm e nt s . 29 C . F . R . § 779. 305. E nt i t i e s tha ta r e s e tup s e pa r a t e l y c a n be ope r a t e d j oi nt l y . P uta l i tt l e di f f e r e nt l y , s e pa r a t e books a nd r e c or ds m a y s how the exi st ence of m ore than o ne corporat e e nt i ty, bu tthey do n otnece ss ar i l y s ho w m ore than o ne es t abl i shm entfor F L S A exem pt i on pu rposes . S ee A cm e C ar& T ruck R e nt a l s , 331 F . 2d a t445 ( de t e rm i ni ng tha ttw o c orpor a t i ons w e r e f unc t i ona l l y one ent i ty a nd thu s asi ng l e e st abl i shm entw here the on l y di st i nct i on betw ee n them w as “th e irs e p a r a te c o rp o r a te e x is te n c e s ” a n d “a ll th e im p lic a tio n s th e r e o f , i.e ., s e p a r a te r e c or ds a nd t a xe s , ” butthe y w e r e c om m onl y ow ne d a nd c ontr ol l e d, s ha r e d the s a m e o f f ic e r s , u s e d th e s a m e p r e m is e s , a n d h ir e d th e s a m e e m p lo y e e s ) .17

In i t s F L S A ra ce tra ck ca se the F i rs tC i rc ui tconcl ud ed thatthe tw o sea sonal bu si ness es , un der the fa ct s of thatca se , funct i on al l y opera t ed as se para t e uni t s. S ee M a r s h a ll, 5 6 2 F .2 d a t 1 3 3 1 . T h e c o m p a n ie s in th a t c a s e m a in ta in e d s e p a r a te r e c or ds , r e c e i ve d di f

f e r e ntt a x tr e a tm e nt , a nd e xe r c i s e d i nde pe nde ntde c i s i on m a ki ng w i th r e s pe c tt o hi r i ng e m pl oy e e s . I d. T he F i r s tC i r c ui tl ooke d be y ond th o s e f a c ts , h o w e v e r , to in q u ir e “m o r e b r o a d ly ” in to “th e in te g r ity o f th e e c o n o m ic

. . . a nd f unc t i ona l s e pa r a t i on be tw e e n the bus i ne s s uni t s . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed) ( el l i psi s i n o ri gi nal ). O ne com pany cond uct ed th o ro u g h b red raci n g d u ri n g o n e p arto f th e year, and th e o th er co n d u ct ed h arn ess ra ci ng du ri ng a di ff

er entpartof the ye ar . Id. at13 27 . A ft erpo i nt i ng ou tthatthere w e r e im p o r ta n t d if

f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n th o s e tw o ty p e s o f r a c in g , w h ic h r e s u lte d in va r i a t i ons i n bus i ne s s r i s ks a nd i n the pa tt e rns of s t a t e r e gul a t i on f

orthe c o m p a n ie s , th e c o u r t r e a s o n e d th a t th e tw o d e f e n d a n ts w e r e e c o n o m ic a lly in d e p e n d e n t o f

e a c h o th e r . I d . a t 1 3 3 2 . I t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e y w e r e n o t as in g le e s t abl i s hm e ntf

orpurpos e s of

the § 213( a ) ( 3) r e c r e a t i ona l a nd a m us e m e nt e x e m p tio n . I d . A l though K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng a l s o m a i nt a i ne d s e pa r a t e r e c or ds and t ax i dent i fi ca t i on nu m bers , un l i ke the defendant s i n M ar shal l , they operat ed th e s a m e s p o r t— g r e y h o u n d r a c in g — a n d w e r e s im ila r ly r e g u la te d b y th e s ta te .18

T he y a l s o f

a i l e d t o ke e p the i rc orpor a t e i de nt i t i e s di s t i nc ta nd the i rope r a t i ons s e p a r a te to th e e x te n t th a t th e M a r s h a ll d e f e n d a n ts d id . K e n n e l Cl u b p a i d th e D e p a r tme n to f St a t e f i l i n g f e e t o r e g i s t e rCCC R a c in g ’s f

ic titio u s n a m e . T h e tw o s h a r e d a s in g le c r e d it c a r d . T he y s ha r e d one general l i abi l i ty i nsurance pol i cy . O n atl ea ston e occ as i on w hen P er ez w as s u p p o s e d l y w o rk i n g f

o rCCC Ra c i n g , h e w a s a c tu a l l y p a i d b y K e n n e l Cl u b . CCC R ac in g co n tro ll ed K en n el C lu b ’s o p er atin g ca sh , an d m o n ey fr o m K en n el C lu b ’s o p e r a tin g a c c o u n ts w a s r e c o r d e d a s a p a y ab le o n C C C R a c in g ’s b o o k s . CCC R ac i ng ’ s s um m erra ci ng perm i tw as pu rc hase d w i th the pers on al fund s of J ac k Co l l i n s , Sr . , w h o w a s th e ma j o r i ty s h a r e h o l d e ro f

b o th K e n n e l Cl u b a n d CCC R ac i ng . H e w as al so the desi gn at ed m anagi ng agentatthe L on gw oo d fac i l i ty y ea rr ound pur s ua ntt o the a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n the c om pa ni e s . S i m i l a r l y , T om B o w e r s o x s e rv e d a s th e d ir e c to ro f r a c in g a n d o p e r a tio n s a t th e f a c ility f o rb o th c o m p a n ie s . B e c a u s e K e n n e l C lu b a n d C C C R a c in g in te rm in g le d f u n d s a n d in m a n y a s p e c ts o f

m a n a g e m e n t f

u n c tio n e d a s a s in g le u n it, th e y w e r e n o t s e p a r a te est ab l i sh m en t s. F or these re as on s, the j ury r ea sonabl y c ou l d h ave f ou nd , as i tdi d, that K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng fa i l ed t o carrythei r burden o f e st abl i shi ng thatthey w e r e e n title d to th e r e c r e a tio n a l a n d a m u s e m e n t e x e m p tio n o f 2 9 U .S .C . §19

2 1 3 (a)(3 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtco rrect l y d en i ed th ei r m o t i o n s fo r j u d g m en tas a m a tte ro f la w , w h ic h w e r e d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e p r o p o s itio n th a t th e y w e r e s e p a r a te est ab l i sh m en t s. I I I . T urni ng no w t o P er ez ’ s c ross -app ea l , hi s f i rs tcont ent i on i s thatthe di stri ct courterre d w hen i tgrant ed C ol l i ns, S r. ’ s r enew ed m ot i on for j ud gm entas a m att er o f la w o n th e g r o u n d th a t h e w a s n o t a n e m p lo y e rw ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F L S A . W he n de c i di ng w he the rt o uphol d a rul i ng on s uc h a m ot i on, “ the s t a nda r d of r e v ie w to b e ap p lie d b y th is C o u r t is th e s a m e a s th a t ap p lie d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t .

. . . If the fa ct s a nd i nfer ence s poi ntov erw hel m i ng l y i n favor of on e party, such thatre as on abl e peopl e c ou l d n otarri ve ata c on tra ryverdi ct , then the m ot i on w as prop er l y gra nt ed. ” C art erv. C i ty of M i am i , 87 0 F . 2d 57 8, 58 1 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). Co l l i n s , Sr . c a n n o tb e h e l d i n d i v i d u a l l y l i ab l e f o rv i o l a t i n g th e o v e r t i me p r o v is io n o f

th e F L S A u n le s s h e is a n “e m p lo y e r ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e A c t. 29 U . S . C . § 2 07 (a )( 1); D on ov an v. G ri m H ot el C o. , 74 7 F . 2d 96 6, 97 1 (5th C i r. 1984) . S e c t i on 203 br oa dl y de f i ne s a n e m pl oy e ra s “ a ny pe r s on a c t i ng di r e c t l y or in d ir e c tly in th e in te r e s t o f a n e m p lo y e rin r e la tio n to a n e m p lo y e e .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 203( d) . W he the ra n i ndi vi dua l f a l l s w i thi n thi s de f

i ni t i on “ doe s notde pe nd on te c h n ic a l o r‘is o la te d f

a c to r s b u t r a th e ro n th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e w h o le20

a c tiv ity .’” H o d g s o n v . G r if f in & B r a n d o f

M c A lle n , I n c ., 4 7 1 F .2 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 7 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 9 7 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Ru th e r f o r d Fo o d Co rp . v . M c Co mb , 3 3 1 U . S. 7 2 2 , 7 3 0 , 6 7 S. C t. 1 4 7 3 , 1 4 7 7 ( 1 9 4 7 ) ) . P e r e z a r gue s tha tC ol l i ns , S r . e xe r c i s e d e nough c ontr ol ove rK e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng f

orhi m t o be tr e a t e d a s a n e m pl oy e runde rthe F L S A . W e ha ve re cogn i ze d that“ [t ] he ov erw hel m i ng w ei gh tof autho ri ty i s thata c orpo ra t e off i ce r w i th ope r a t i ona l c ontr ol of a c orpor a t i on’ s c ove r e d e nt e rpr i s e i s a n e m pl oy e ra l ong w ith th e c o rp o r a tio n , jo in tly a n d s e v e r a lly liab le u n d e rth e F L S A f o ru n p a id w a ge s . ” P a t e l v. W a r go, 803 F . 2d 632, 637–38 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H o w e v e r , w e h a v e a ls o m a d e c le a rth a t in o r d e rto qua l i f y a s a n e m pl oy e rf

orthi s purpos e , a n of

f i c e r“ m us te i the rbe i nvol ve d i n the da y - t o- da y ope r a t i on orha ve s om e di r e c tr e s pons i bi l i ty f orthe s upe rvi s i on of

the e m pl oy e e . ” I d. a t638. O urde c i s i on i n P a t e l i s i ns truc t i ve . T he r e w e he l d tha tthe de f e nda nt , w ho w a s both the pr e s i de nta nd vi c e - pr e s i de ntof a c orpor a t i on, a s w e l l a s a di r e c t ora nd a pri nci pal st ockh ol der, w as no tan em pl oyerfor F L S A pu rposes . W e r ea ched that c onc l us i on be c a us e he di d not“ ha ve ope r a t i ona l c ontr ol of s i gni f i c a nta s pe c t s of [ the c om pa ny ’ s ] da y - t o- da y f unc t i ons , i nc l udi ng c om pe ns a t i on of e m pl oy e e s or other m att er s i n rel at i on t o an em pl oyee . ” I d. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed);21

s e e a ls o W ir tz v . P u r e I c e C o ., 3 2 2 F .2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 3 ( 8 th C ir . 1 9 6 3 ) ( f in d in g th a t a m a j or i ty s t oc khol de rw ho vi s i t e d the c om pa ny onl y tw o orthr e e t i m e s a y e a ra nd

“ h ad n o th i n g t o d o w i th th e h i ri n g o f th e em p l o yees o r fi x i n g th ei r w ag es o r h o u rs” w a s n o t a n e m p lo y e ru n d e rth e F L S A ) . W h ile a c k n o w le d g in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n t in P a t e l c oul d ha ve , i f

he ha d c hos e n, pl a y e d a gr e a t e rr ol e i n the ope r a t i ons of the c om pa ny , w e f

oc us e d on the r ol e tha the di d pl a y i n c onc l udi ng tha the “ l a c ke d the op er at i on al control nece ss ary f or the i m po si t i on of l i abi l i ty a s a n ‘ em pl oyer ’ un der th e F L S A .” P a te l, 8 0 3 F .2 d a t 6 3 8 ; s e e a ls o W ir tz , 3 2 2 F .2 d a t 2 6 2 ( “T h e r e is little que s t i on f

r om the r e c or d butw ha tT hom ps on a s the m a j or i ty s t oc khol de ra nd dom i na ntpe r s ona l i ty i n P ur e I c e C om pa ny , I nc . , c oul d ha ve t a ke n ove ra nd s upe rvi s e d the r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the c orpor a t i on a nd i t s e m pl oy e e s ha d he d e c id e d to d o s o . A c a r e f u l r e a d in g o f

th e r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , in d ic a te s th a t h e d id no tdo so. ”) . L i ke the pr e s i de nti n P a t e l , C ol l i ns , S r . di d nott a ke s uc h a n a c t i ve r ol e i n the day- t o-day operat i on s of K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng . T he un di sput ed evi dence e s tab lis h e d th a t h is s o n s — n o t C o llin s , S r . h im s e lf

— h a d e x e r c is e d c o n s id e r ab le c o n tr o l a t th e L o n g w o o d f a c ility s in c e 1 9 9 8 , th e y e a rh e h a d a h e a r t a tta c k . Ja ck C ol l i ns , J r . t e s t i f

i e d tha the w a s the one w ho ha d the ul t i m a t e s a y c onc e rni ng hi r i ng a nd f i r i ng de c i s i ons a tK e nne l C l ub, a nd tha thi s f a the rha d note ve n vi s i t e d the22

f a c i l i ty m or e tha n onc e a y e a r . C ol l i ns , S r . t e s t i f i e d tha ts i nc e 1988 he ha d not t a ke n pa r ti n the da y - t o- da y ope r a t i ons of the f a c i l i ty , ha d notbe e n i nvol ve d i n the s u p e rv is io n o rh ir in g a n d f ir in g o f e m p lo y e e s , a n d h a d n o t d e te rm in e d th e ir c o m p e n s a tio n . T om B ow er sox— the di re ct or of ra ci ng and o pera t i on s— adm i tt ed thathe w ou l d h ave c om pl i ed w i th any di re ct i ve C ol l i ns, S r. gave hi m , bu tt es t i fi ed thatC ol l i ns, S r. had n evergi ven h i m any i nstruct i on s abo utan em pl oym entm att er . A l though C ol l i ns , S r . r e m a i ne d the de s i gna t e d m a na gi ng a ge ntunde rthe a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n K e n n e l C lu b a n d C C C R a c in g e v e n a f te rh is h e a r t a tta c k in 1998, a nd he c oul d ha ve pl a y e d a gr e a t e rr ol e i n the da y - t o- da y ope r a t i ons of the L o n g w o o d f

a c ility if h e h a d d e s ir e d , P a te l in s tru c ts th a t u n e x e r c is e d a u th o r ity is i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh l i abi l i ty a s a n em pl oyer . S ee P at el , 80 3 F . 2d at63 8; se e a ls o W ir tz , 3 2 2 F .2 d a t 2 6 2 . P e r e z ’s a tto rn e y s u g g e s te d a t o r a l a r g u m e n t th a t w e s h o u ld f in d th e S ix th C i rc ui t ’ s dec i si on i n D ol e v. E l l i ot tT ra vel & T ou rs , Inc. , 94 2 F . 2d 96 2 (6th C i r. 1991) , he l pf

ul on thi s i s s ue , butw e don’ tf i nd i the l pf

ul t o hi s s i de . I n D ol e , the S i x th C i rcu i taffi rm ed th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en tag ai n st the pres i dentand co-ow ner of acorporat i on on the F L S A em pl oyeri ss ue. Id. at 966. T he pr e s i de nti n the D ol e c a s e , how e ve r , notonl y ha d a “ s i gni f i c a nt ow ners hi p i nt er es ti n the corporat i on , ” butal so had and exer ci se d “ control ov er23

s i gni f i c a nta s pe c t s of

the c orpor a t i on’ s da y - t o- da y f unc t i ons , i nc l udi ng de t e rm i ni ng em pl oyee sa l ar i es . ” I d. ; se e a l so G ri m H ot el C o. , 74 7 F . 2d at97 2 (concl ud i ng that the defendantw as an em pl oyerw here he began and control l ed the ho t el corporat i on s, hel d thei r purse stri ng s, gu i ded thei r pol i ci es , coul d autho ri ze com pl i ance w i th the F L S A , sol ved m aj or prob l em s, and h ad “ ul t i m at e c on trol ov er w a ge s ” ) ; D onova n v. A gne w , 712 F . 2d 1509, 1511 ( 1s tC i r . 1983) ( a f f i rm i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rc onc l udi ng tha ttw o de f e nda nt s — w ho t oge the rw e r e the pres i dent , tre as urer , se cr et ary, and o nl y m em bers of the bo ar d o f di re ct ors— w er e e m p lo y e r s w h e r e th e y m a in ta in e d o f f ic e s a t th e c o m p a n y a n d “w e r e a c tiv e ly en g ag ed i n th e m an ag em en t , su p erv i si o n an d o v ersi g h t ” o f th e co m p an y’ s affai rs, “in c lu d in g e m p lo y e e c o m p e n s a tio n a n d b e n e f its ” ) . T h e S ix th C ir c u it n o te d in D o le th a t, “T o b e c la s s if ie d a s a n e m p lo y e r , it is no tre qu i re d thata party have e xcl usi ve control of a c orpo ra t i on ’ s day -t o-day f unc t i ons . T he pa r ty ne e d onl y ha ve ope r a t i ona l c ontr ol of s i gni f i c a nta s pe c t s of the c orpor a t i on’ s da y t o da y f unc t i ons . ” D ol e , 942 F . 2d a t966 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . F ortha tr e a s on the f a c ttha ta pa y r ol l bookke e pe rha ndl e d the de t a i l s of c a l c ul a t i ng hour s , ove r t i m e , a nd c om m i s s i ons di d notpr e ve ntthe pres i dent , w ho ac tual l y dec i ded h ow m uch the em pl oyee com pensat i on w ou l d b e, f r om be i ng a n e m pl oy e r . I d. ; s e e a l s o S c hul t z v. M a c k F a r l a nd & S ons R oof i ng24

C o. , 41 3 F . 2d 12 96 , 12 99 –1 30 0 (5th C i r. 19 69 ) ( fi nd i ng thatthe foun der, pr e s i de nt , a nd s ol e i nve s t ori n tw o c orpor a t i ons w a s a n e m pl oy e rw he r e he s e tthe m a na ge m e ntpol i c y f

orboth c orpor a t i ons a nd e xe r c i s e d a uthor i ty ove rthe hi r i ng, f i r i ng, hour s , w ork a s s i gnm e nt s , a nd c om pe ns a t i on of s upe rvi s ory pe r s onne l ) . N or di d i tm a tt e ri n the D ol e c a s e tha ta ge ne r a l m a na ge rha ndl e d m a ny of the da y - t oday probl em s r el at i ng t o the op er at i on of the corporat i on or thatbranch m anagers e xe r c i s e d s om e c ontr ol ove rthe hour s tha tthe i re m pl oy e e s w or ke d. D ol e , 942 F . 2d a t966. B e c a us e he “ w a s i nvol ve d i n the bus i ne s s ope r a t i ons of the c o rp o r a tio n , a n d h e c o n tr o lle d th e p u r s e s tr in g s o f th e c o rp o r a tio n ,” th e S ix th C i rc ui thel d the pres i denti n D ol e j oi nt l y a nd se vera l l y l i abl e a s a n em pl oyerun der the F L S A . I d. O ur ca se , ho w ever , i s di ff er ent . T here w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence for aj ury re as on abl y t o con cl ud e thatC ol l i ns, S r. w as ei ther i nv ol ved i n the day- t o-day ope r a t i on of

the L ongw ood r a c e tr a c k f a c i l i ty orw a s di r e c t l y r e s pons i bl e f orthe supervi si on of em pl oyee s duri ng the re l evantye ar s. P er ez i ntrodu ce d n o evi dence t o con tra di ctthe un i form t es t i m on y of C ol l i ns, S r. , of T om B ow er sox, and o f J ac k C ol l i ns , J r . tha ts i nc e C ol l i ns , S r . s uf f e r e d a he a r ta tt a c k i n 1998, hi s s ons ha d run th e b u s in e s s a n d m a d e a ll th e d e c is io n s ab o u t h ir in g a n d f ir in g a n d c o m p e n s a tio n . P er ez w as l ef

tt o rel y on C ol l i ns, S r. ’ s off i ci al po si t i on as m anagi ng agentun der25

the a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng, buta s ourP a t e l de c i s i on e s tab lis h e s , th a t is n o t e n o u g h . T h e d i stri ctco u rtco rrect l y g ran t ed C o l l i n s, S r. ’ s m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en tas a m a tte ro f la w o n th e is s u e in v o lv in g h is in d iv id u a l liab ility . I V . P e r e z a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ac t ed i n g oo d fai th, w hi ch w as the basi s f or the court ’ s dec i si on no tt o aw ar d l i qu i dat ed dam ages agai nstthem . T hi s c on t ent i on focuse s on the i ncon si st ency b etw een th atfi n d i n g b y th e j u d g e an d th e j u ry’ s earl i er fi n d i n g th atth e d efen d an t s’ vi ol a t i ons w e r e w i l l f

ul , w hi c h i ti m pl i c i t l y m a de i n the c our s e of de c i di ng on the l e ngth of the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. P e r e z a r gue s tha tthe c our t ’ s f i ndi ng of g o o d fai th can n o tb e reco n ci l ed w i th th e j u ry’ s fi n d i n g o f w i l l fu l n ess an d m u st y ie ld to it. I f

s o , it w a s e rr o rf

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o t to a s s e s s liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . T he s e e d be d tha tga ve r i s e t o thi s c onf l i c tbe tw e e n f

i ndi ngs l i e s i n ha vi ng the j udge a nd j ury a ns w e rw ha ti s e s s e nt i a l l y the s a m e que s t i on f ortw o di f

f e r e nt p u rp o ses. T h e w illf

u ln e s s o rg o o d f

a ith q u e s tio n is a n s w e r e d f ir s t b y th e ju ry to d e te rm in e th e p e r io d o f

lim ita tio n s a n d th e n , if

th e r e is a v e r d ic t f

o rth e e m p lo y e e , a g a in b y th e ju d g e to d e te rm in e w h e th e rto a w a r d liq u id a te d d a m a g e s .We have be en unableto find an F L SA decision of this Court squarely holding that the 3 decision about whether the employer acted willfully for pur poses of determiningthe statute of limit ations period is to be dec ided by the jury . In the district court, the c ourt and the pa rties assumed that the jury

was to dec ide willfulness, and the pa rties haveassumed that in their brie fs and arguments to us. So, we assume it too. 26 T he st atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or cl ai m s s ee ki ng un pai d o vert i m e w ages g e n e r a lly is tw o y e a r s , b u t if th e c la im is o n e “a r is in g o u t o f a w illf u l v io la tio n ,” a nothe ry e a ri s a dde d t o i t . 29 U . S . C . § 255( a ) . T o e s t abl i s h tha tthe vi ol a t i on of th e A ctw as w i l l fu l i n o rd er t o ex t en d th e l i m i t at i o n s p eri o d , th e em p l o yee m u st p r o v e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t h is e m p lo y e re ith e rk n e w th a t its cond uctw as proh i bi t ed by the st atut e or s ho w ed re ckl es s di sr egar d abo utw hether i tw a s . M c L a ughl i n v. R i c hl a nd S hoe C o. , 486 U . S . 128, 133, 108 S . C t . 1677, 1681 ( 1988) . T he C ode of F e de r a l R e gul a t i ons de f i ne s r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d a s the

“ f a i l ur e t o m a ke a de qua t e i nqui ry i nt o w he the rc onduc ti s i n c om pl i a nc e w i th the A c t . ” 5 C . F . R . § 551. 104. W he r e the j ury de c i de s w i l l f ul ne s s f ors t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons purpos e s , s e e F ow l e rv. L a nd M gm t . G r oupe , I nc . , 978 F . 2d 158, 163 ( 4th C i r . 1992) , i tw i l l be c a l l e d upon t o do s o i n c a s e s , l i ke thi s one , w he r e the f a i l ur e t o pa y ove r t i m e oc c urr e d m or e tha n tw o y e a r s be f or e the a c t i on w a s f

i l e d. 3 T h a t is o n e s id e o f

th e p o te n tia l c o n f

lic t. T he othe rs i de of

the pot e nt i a l c onf

l i c ti s tha tthe A c ta s s i gns t o the j udge the r o le o f f in d in g w h e th e rth e e m p lo y e ra c te d in s u b je c tiv e a n d o b

je c tiv e g o o d f

a ith for l i qu i dat ed dam ages pu rposes . S ee 29 U . S . C . § 2 60 . W hen the j ury f i nd s a n27

em pl oyerhas vi ol at ed the ov ert i m e provi si on of the F L S A and ass es se s c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s , the di s tr i c tc our tge ne r a l l y m us ta dd a n a w a r d of l i qui da t e d da m a ge s i n the s a m e a m ount , w hi c h doubl e s the t ot a l da m a ge s a w a r de d. 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 ( b ) ( “A n y e m p lo y e rw h o v io la te s th e p r o v is io n s o f [ th e F L S A ] . . . s h a ll b e liab le to th e e m p lo y e e o re m p lo y e e s a f f e c te d in th e a m o u n t o f

. . . th e ir un pai d o vert i m e c om pensat i on . . . and i n an add i t i on al equal am ou ntas l i qu i dat ed da m a ge s . ” ) ; s e e a l s o D y ba c h v. S t a t e of F l a . D e p’ tof

C orr . , 942 F . 2d 1562, 15 66 –7 7 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). T here i s, ho w ever , a goo d fai th d ef ense , w hi ch gi ves the c our tdi s c r e t i on t o r e duc e orde ny a n a w a r d of l i qui da t e d da m a ge s “ i f

the em p l o yer sh o w s t o th e sat i sfact i o n o f th e co u rtth atth e acto r o m i ssi o n g i v i n g ri se t o s uc h a c t i on w a s i n good f a i th a nd tha the ha d r e a s onabl e gr ounds f orbe l i e vi ng tha thi s a c torom i s s i on w a s nota vi ol a t i on of the F a i rL aborS t a nda r ds A c t . ” 29 U . S . C . § 260. T he e m pl oy e rbe a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng both the s ubj e c t i ve a n d o b je c tiv e c o m p o n e n ts o f

th a t g o o d f

a ith d e f e n s e a g a in s t liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . D ybac h, 94 2 F . 2d at15 66 ; S pi re s v. B en H i l l C ou nty, 98 0 F . 2d 68 3, 68 9 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ). W e di sc usse d thi s c on fl i ctof fi nd i ng s i ss ue i n o ur re ce ntdeci si on i n ano ther F L S A ove r t i m e w a ge s c a s e . S e e R odr i gue z v. F a rm S t or e s G r oc e ry , I nc . , ___ F . 3d ___ ( 11th C i r . 2008) . T he r e w e ha d the f l i p s i de of

the pr e s e ntc i r c um s t a nc e s . T he28

e m pl oy e ri n R odr i gue z c ont e nde d tha tbe c a us e the j ury ha d f ound tha tthe vi ol a t i on o f th e o v ert i m e p ro v i si o n h ad n o tb een w i l l fu l fo r st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s p u rp o ses, the j udge w a s r e qui r e d t o f i nd tha tthe e m pl oy e rha d a c t e d i n good f a i th f or l i qui da t e d da m a ge s purpos e s . I d. a t___. W e f o u n d it u n n e c e s s a ry to d e c id e in R o d r ig u e z w h e th e rth e ju d g e c o u ld m ak e a fi n d i n g o n g o o d fai th i n co n si st en tw i th th e j u ry’ s fi n d i n g o n w i l l fu l n ess, be c a us e the di f

f e r e ntbur de ns of

pr oof m e a nttha tthe f

i ndi ngs i n tha tc a s e w e r e not in co n sisten t. Id . at _

__ . V iew ed in li g h t o f w h ich p ar ty h ad th e b u rd en , th e ju ry ’s fi nd i ng w as thatthe em pl oyee had n otprov en by a prepond er ance of the evi dence tha tthe r e w a s w i l l f

ul ne s s , w hi l e the j udge ’ s f i ndi ng w a s tha tthe e m pl oy e rha d not pr ove n by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tthe r e w a s a l a c k of good f a i th. I d. at___. A s w e e xp l ai ned, the tw o fi nd i ng s w er e noti ncon si st entbecause a r e a s onabl e f

a c t f i nde rc oul d ha ve f

ound the e vi de nc e t o be i n e qui poi s e on the w i l l ful ness / go od fa i th q uest i on , w i th the re sul tthatthe em pl oyee had n otprov en w i l l ful ness atthe sa m e t i m e the em pl oyerhad n otprov en go od fa i th. Id. at___. In o th er w o rd s, i ti s l o g i cal l y p o ssi b l e fo r th e l o si n g si d e t o h av e v ari ed w i th , b ecau se i tdepend ed on , the bu rden of proo f. T h at th eo ry o f r ec o n cili atio n w il l n o t w o rk in th e p re se n t cas e. T h e ju ry ’s verdi cton the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s i ss ue am ou nt s t o a fi nd i ng thatthe em pl oyee29

c a rr i e d hi s bur de n of

pr ovi ng w i l l f

ul ne s s , w hi l e the j udge ’ s de c i s i on on the l i qu i dat ed dam ages i ss ue am ou nt s t o a fi nd i ng thatthe em pl oyerca rr i ed i t s burden o f p r o v in g g o o d f

a ith . B o th f

in d in g s ru le o u t a n y e q u ip o is e in th e e v id e n c e . B e c a u s e th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f i s d i f f e r e n t , two n e g a t i v e f

i n d i n g s , wh i c h i s wh a twe h a d i n R o d r i g u e z , m a y b e e x p l a i n e d b y p o s i t i n g a n e v e n n e s s o f th e e v i d e n c e ; two po si t i ve fi nd i ng s, w hi ch i s w hatw e have here , ca nn otbe. S o, the i ss ue thatw as no tpres ent ed i n R od ri gu ez i s s qu ar el y pre se nt ed here: D oes the j ury’ s f i nd i ng that w i l l ful ness has bee n p roven b y the em pl oyee prec l ud e the j ud ge fr om fi nd i ng that g o o d f a i th h a s b e e n p r o v e n b y th e e mp l o y e r ? W e ha ve notde c i de d thi s i s s ue i n the F L S A c ont e xt , butw e ha ve r e s ol ve d c lo s e ly a n a lo g o u s is s u e s in th e E q u a l P a y A c t a n d A g e D is c r im in a tio n in E m p lo y m e n t A c t c o n te x ts . S e e G le n n v . G e n . M o to r s C o rp ., 8 4 1 F .2 d 1 5 6 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1988) ; C a s t l e v. S a nga m o W e s t on, I nc . , 837 F . 2d 1550 ( 11th C i r . 1988) . T he E qua l P a y A c ta m e nde d § 206 of the F L S A t o pr e ve ntpa y di s c r i m i na t i on ba s e d on s e x , a n d th e F L S A ’s s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a n d liq u id a te d d a m a g e s p r o v is io n s ap p ly t o E P A cl ai m s. S ee 29 U . S . C . §§ 20 6(d)(3), 21 6(b), 26 0. In the G l enn cas e, w hi ch w as l i t i gat ed before there w as a r i gh tt o a j ury tri al i n E P A ac t i on s, the di stri ct courtfoun d i n d ec i di ng the l ength o f the l i m i t at i on s per i od thatthe em pl oyerhad ac t ed w i l l ful l y i n v i ol at i ng the st atut e, and i tfoun d i n aw ar di ng l i qu i dat ed dam ages30

thatthe em pl oyerhad n otprov en thati tac t ed i n g oo d fai th. G l enn, 84 1 F . 2d at 1573. T he e m pl oy e rc ont e nde d on appe a l tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d notha ve a w a r de d l i qui da t e d da m a ge s , butw e r e j e c t e d tha tc ont e nt i on f

ortw o a l t e rna t i ve re as on s. Id. O ne w as thatthere w as suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe di stri ct c o u r t’s f in d in g th a t th e c o m p a n y h a d n o t a c te d in g o o d f a ith . I d . T h e s e c o n d r e a s o n w e g a v e f o ra f f irm in g th e a w a r d o f

liq u id a te d d a m a g e s in G l e nn w a s tha ta f

i ndi ng the de f

e nda ntha d a c t e d w i l l f

ul l y f ors t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons pu rposes prec l ud es a f

i nd i ng thati tac t ed i n g oo d fai th for l i qu i dat ed dam ages purpos e s . I d. a t1573 n. 14 ( e xpl a i ni ng “ tha tourc onc l us i on i n the c ont e xtof the d is c u s s io n o n th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s is s u e th a t G M ’s a c tio n s m e t [ th e ] . . . defi ni t i on of ‘ w i l l ful ’ prec l ud es a f i nd i ng of go od fa i th o n the partof G M ”) ; se e a l s o E E O C v. C i ty of

D e tr oi tH e a l th D e p’ t , H e rm a n K i e f e rC om pl e x, 920 F . 2d 355, 358 ( 6th C i r . 1990) ( “ S i nc e the j ury de t e rm i ne d tha tthe C i ty ’ s vi ol a t i on of the E qu al P ayA ctw as w i l l ful , and si nce the di stri ctcourtw as , i n d et erm i ni ng w hether the vi ol a t i on w a s i n good f a i th a nd w i th r e a s onabl e gr ounds , pr e s e nt e d w i th the s a m e i s s ue , the di s tr i c tc our tw a s bound by the j ury f i ndi ng. ” ) . T he pr e c l us i on hol di ng i n G l e nn w a s a n a l t e rna t i ve one , buta l t e rna t i ve hol di ngs a r e bi ndi ng pr e c e de nt . M a s s a c hus e tt s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 333 U . S . 611, 623, 68 S . C t . 747, 754 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ; R ic h m o n d S c r e w A n c h o rC o . v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 7 5 U .S . 3 3 1 , 3 4 0 , 4 8 S . C t.31

194, 196 ( 1928) ; J ohns on v. D e S ot o C ounty B d. of C om m ’ r s , 72 F . 3d 1556, 1562 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ; M c L e l l a n v. M i s s . P ow e r& L i ghtC o. , 545 F . 2d 919, 925 n. 21 (5th C i r. 19 77 ). O f c our s e , w e di d notha ve the j ury ve r s us j udge a s pe c tof the que s t i on i n the G l e nn c a s e . B utw e di d ha ve i ti n the C a s t l e A D E A c a s e . T ha ts t a tut e pr ovi de s f or l i q u i d a t e d d a ma g e s o n l y w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s v i o l a t i o n w a s “ w i l l f u l . ” 2 9 U . S. C. § 6 26 (b). F or pu rposes of thatprov i si on , the S up re m e C ou rthad d ef i ned w i l l fu l n ess as m ean i n g th atth e d efen d an t“ ei th er k n ew o r sh o w ed reck l ess di sr egar d for the m att erof w hether i t s c on du ctw as proh i bi t ed by the A D E A . ” T r a ns W or l d A i r l i ne s , I nc . v. T hur s t on, 469 U . S . 111, 128–29, 105 S . C t . 613, 625–26 ( 1985) . T ha ti s the s a m e de f i ni t i on of w i l l f ul ne s s tha tappl i e s t o the F L S A ’s s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s p r o v is io n . M c L a u g h lin , 4 8 6 U .S . a t 1 3 5 , 1 0 8 S . C t. a t 1 6 8 2 . Th a twi l l f

u l n e s s h a s th e s a me me a n i n g u n d e rb o th th e FL SA a n d th e AD EA i s i m po rt antfor our pu rposes , because w e poi nt ed ou ti n C as t l e thatw hen a j ury f in d s th a t ad e f

e n d a n t’s v io la tio n is w illf u l f o rs ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s p u rp o s e s , “it ha s a l r e a dy f

a c t or e d the pos s i bi l i ty of good f a i th i nt o i t s e xa m i na t i on. ” C a s t l e , 837 F . 2d at15 61 . W e hel d thata j ury’ s f i nd i ng of w i l l ful ness depri ves the di stri ct c our tof a ny di s c r e t i on t o r e duc e l i qui da t e d da m a ge s ba s e d on i t s ow n f i ndi ng ofBe forethe Supreme Court’s de cision in Thurston, this C ourt used in ADEAcase s the 4 “in the picture ” standa

rd of willfulness, which asked whether the employer knew or suspec ted that the conduc t might violate the Ac t. See Coleman v. Ji ffy June F arms, Inc., 458 F .2d 1139, 1142 (5th Cir. 1972). With that ver y broad de finition of willfulness in place, our c ircuit law permitt e d th edis tric t c ourt to re duc eor

deny liq uidate d damag e s b a se d o n a findingof

g oo d f aith even whereit had been determined that the employer willfully violated the ADEA. In Hays v. Republic Steel Corp, 531 F.2d 1307 ( 5th Cir. 1976), consideringthe applica bility of the g ood faith def ense in 29 U.S.C. § 260 to the ADEA, w e held that the discretion of the district c ourt un der § 26 0 tore duc eor

deny liq uidate d damag e s b a se d o n a sh ow ingof

g oo d f aitha pp lie d to ADEA c ases. Id. at 1312. Under the J iffy June standa

rd, a f inding of willfulness and a later findingof g oo d f aithwereno t c ontra dic tor y . An empl oyer c ould k

no w that th erewa s a possibili ty

it was violating theAct but still have a g ood faith belief that it was not. However, af

ter the Supreme Court narrowed the de finition of willfulness in Thurston, we deter mined that the Supreme Court had “disapprove d this court’s def inition of will fulness and, by implication, disapproved the discretion that this court had veste d in district courts to reduc e the liquidated damag es aw ard on a findingof g ood faith.” Spanier v. Morrison’s Mgmt. Servs., 822 F.2d 975, 979 ( 11th Cir. 1987). In other words, Thurston’s nar rowingof the de finition of willfulness made it and g ood faith mutually exclusive. 32 go od fa i th. Id. W e e xp l ai ned thatho l di ng thi s w ay : “ N oton l y w ou l d a di stri ct

4 courti m perm i ss i vel y be m aki ng a f i nd i ng contra ryt o the j ury’ s f i nd i ng s, bu tun der th e T h u r s to n d e f

in itio n to f

in d ‘g o o d f

a ith ’ a f te ra f in d in g o f ‘w illf u l’ v io la tio n is i l l ogi c a l ; the tw o t e rm s a r e now m utua l l y e xc l us i ve . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i on o m itte d ) ; s e e a ls o S p a n ie rv . M o rr is o n ’s M g m t. S e rv s ., 8 2 2 F .2 d 9 7 5 , 9 7 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1987) ( “ W e hol d tha tthe e xi s t e nc e of a j ury i s s ue of

w i l l f ul ne s s unde rthe Th u r s t o n s t a n d a r d d i v e s t s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r to f d i s c r e t i o n t o r e d u c e a n AD EA l i qui da t e d da m a ge s a w a r d. ” ) ; L i nds e y v. A m . C a s tI r on P i pe C o. , 810 F . 2d 1094, 1 0 9 8 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 7 ) (“ [I] ti s w el l -sett l edth atth e co u rtm ay n o tm ak e fi n d i n g s’ contra ryt o o r i ncon si st entw i th the j ury’ s r es ol ut i on . . . of thatsa m e i ss ue as i m pl i c i t l y r e f

l e c t e d i n i t s ge ne r a l ve r di c t. . . . ” ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd33

c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ( e l l i ps i s i n or i gi na l ) ) ; P ow e l l v. R oc kw e l l I nt ’ l C orp. , 788 F . 2d 27 9, 28 7 (5th C i r. 19 86 ) ( af fi rm i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s a w ar d o f l i qu i dat ed dam ages i n an A D E A ca se because und er“ the T hu rs t on rul e . . . ‘ go od fa i th’ ca n n o l on ger c oe xi s tw i th ‘ w i l l f

ul ne s s ’ ” a nd c onc l udi ng tha t“ a f ur the re xa m i na t i on of

good f a i th be c om e s i rr e l e va ntbe c a us e i tha s a l r e a dy be e n f a c t or e d i nt o the T hur s t on

‘ w i l l ful ness ’ defi ni t i on ” by the j ury) . W e c o n c lu d e , b a s e d o n th e r e a s o n in g a n d h o ld in g s o f o u rG le n n a n d C a s tle de c i s i ons , tha ti n a n F L S A c a s e a j ury ’ s f i ndi ng i n de c i di ng the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od que s t i on tha tthe e m pl oy e ra c t e d w i l l f ul l y pr e c l ude s the c our tf r om f i ndi ng tha tthe e m pl oy e ra c t e d i n good f a i th w he n i tde c i de s the l i qui da t e d da m a ge s que s t i on. O ur c onc l us i on put s us on w ha tappe a r s t o be the m a j or i ty s i de of

the c i r c ui ts pl i ton thi s i ss ue. C om pare S i ng erv. C i ty of W ac o, T ex. , 32 4 F . 3d 81 3, 82 3 (5th C i r. 2003) ( a f f i rm i ng a n a w a r d of

l i qui da t e d da m a ge s w he r e the j ury ha d f ound tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s vi ol a t i on of

the F L S A w a s w i l l f

ul , be c a us e the de f

e nda ntc oul d not s how i tha d a c t e d i n good f a i th) , a nd C ha o v. A - O ne M e d. S e rvs . , I nc . , 346 F . 3d 908, 920 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( a f f i rm i ng a n a w a r d of

l i qui da t e d da m a ge s unde rthe F L S A w he r e the r e ha d be e n a f i ndi ng of w i l l f ul ne s s , a nd not i ng tha t“ a f i ndi ng of good f a i th i s pl a i nl y i nc ons i s t e ntw i th a f i ndi ng of w i l l f ul ne s s ” ) , a nd H e rm a n v. P a l o G r oup F os t e rH om e , I nc . , 183 F . 3d 468, 474 ( 6th C i r . 1999) ( a f f i rm i ng a34

di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a w a r d of l i qui da t e d da m a ge s f

orvi ol a t i ons of

the F L S A a nd concl ud i ng that“ a f

i nd i ng of w i l l ful ness i s di sposi t i ve of the l i qu i dat ed-dam ages i ss ue”) , and P ol l i s v. N ew S ch. for S oc. R es ea rc h, 13 2 F . 3d 11 5, 12 0 (2d C i r. 1997) ( f i ndi ng i n a n E P A c a s e tha ta n e m pl oy e rha d a c t e d w i l l f ul l y f orpurpos e s of the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons , “ a nd the r e s ul t i ng c om pe ns a t ory a w a r d s houl d be doubl e d pur s ua ntt o the F a i rL aborS t a nda r ds A c t ’ s l i qui da t e d da m a ge s pr ovi s i on” u n d e r2 9 U .S .C . § 2 6 0 ) , a n d B r in k m a n v . D e p ’t o f C o rr ., 2 1 F .3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 2 ( 1 0 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( det erm i ni ng thatthe di stri ctcourt“ prop er l y a w ar ded l i qu i dat ed dam ages base d u po n the j ury’ s f i nd i ng of w i l l ful ness ” bec ause “ w hen facti ss ues c e n tr a l to a c la im a r e d e c id e d b y a ju ry u p o n e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld ju s tif y its concl usi on , the S eventh A m endm entri gh tt o a j ury tri al proh i bi t s the di stri ctcourt f r om r e a c hi ng a c ontr a ry c onc l us i on” ) , w i th B r oa dus v. O . K . I ndus . , I nc . , 226 F . 3d 937, 944 ( 8th C i r . 2000) ( not i ng i n a n E P A c a s e tha tthe “ j ury ’ s de c i s i on on w i l l ful ness i s di st i nctfr om the di stri ctj ud ge’ s dec i si on t o aw ar d l i qu i dat ed d a ma g e s ” ( c i t a t i o n o mi tt e d ) ) , a n d Fo w l e r , 9 7 8 F. 2 d a t1 6 3 ( d e t e rmi n i n g i n a n EPA c a s e tha ti n l i ghtof

“ the e xpl i c i tl a ngua ge of s e c t i on 260, e xpr e s s l y ve s t i ng d is c r e tio n to a w a r d liq u id a te d d a m a g e s in th e h a n d s o f th e tr ia l ju d g e . . . C on gres si on al i nt entw ou l d [no t ] be ef fe ctuat ed by a s chem e i n w hi ch, i n every c a s e , th e tr ia l c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n to a w a r d liq u id a te d d a m a g e s w o u ld b e c o m p le te lyTh eF ourt h Circuit mis sp okewh en it

said in F ow ler t

hat th ema

jority po sition on thi s 5 issue results in “a scheme in which, in every case , the trial cour

t’s discretion to awa

rd liquidated damag es would be c ompletely constraine d by

the jury ’s deter

mination on ‘willfulness’ for purposes of thestatute of limitations.” Fowler , 978 F.2d at 163. Therewill not be a statute of limitatio ns issuefo r t

hejur y to de c ide“ in every

c a se .”Ev en in

thesu bs e t of c a se s wherethereis a statuteof limitatio ns issue , a

de c isi on by thejur y that th ee mpl oye eha s f

aile d toc arr

y his burden of provingwillfulness will not constrain the judg e’s de cision on whether the employer ha s c arrie d it s b urden o f p ro vingg oo d f aithfo r l iquidate d damag e s p ur po se s. Only

in t ho se case s wherethereis a statute of limitations is sue and wherethe jury decide s that issue by

finding that the employee ha s proven the employer acted willfully will the judge ’s dec ision on the liquidated damag es issue be c onstrained. 35 c o n s tr a in e d b y th e ju ry ’s d e te rm in a tio n o n ‘w illf u ln e s s ’ f o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e s ta tu te of l i m i t at i on s” ). 5 W e r e je c t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s e m p o w e r e d to de c i de the good f

a i th que s t i on a nd de c l i ne t o a w a r d l i qui da t e d da m a ge s be c a us e of the e vi de nc e tha tthe y ha d c ons ul t e d a n a tt orne y a nd the i rpa y r ol l c om pa ny about w hether they qual i fi ed for the re cr ea t i on al and am usem ent s e xem pt i on and h ad b een ad v i sed th atth ey d i d . G i v en o u r h o l d i n g th ata j u ry’ s fi n d i n g o f w i l l fu l n ess fore cl oses a j ud ge fr om fi nd i ng go od fa i th, evi dence thatan em pl oyerac t ed w i tho utw i l l ful ness and i n g oo d fai th m akes a di ff er ence atthi s s t age onl y i f that evi dence com pel s j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw for the em pl oyer . In deci di ng that que s t i on w e appl y the us ua l s t a nda r d of w he the r“ no j ury r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve re ac hed a verdi ctfor the pl ai nt i ff ” on the cl ai m or defe nse. C ol l ado v . U ni t ed P ar ce l S erv. , C o. , 41 9 F . 3d 11 43 , 11 49 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e app l y thatst andard36

de novo a nd m us tdr a w a l l i nf e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof the pr e va i l i ng pa r ty , i d. , he r e the p la in tif f . T he defendant s pre se nt ed t es t i m on y on thi s i ss ue fr om three w i tness es . G ra y L a ne y , a C P A w ho w orke d f orboth K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng, t e s t i f i e d tha the h a d a l wa y s th o u g h tth a tth e c o m p a n i e s we r e e x e m p tf r o m p a y i n g o v e r t i m e . He s a i d tha the ha d di s c us s e d the m a tt e rw i th a s a l e s r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of P a y c he c ks B usi ness S ol ut i on s, thei r pay rol l com pany, w ho re vi ew ed i tw i th an u ni dent i fi ed p e r s o n i n h i s c o mp a n y . Th e y w e r e o f th e o p i n i o n th a tK e n n e l Cl u b a n d CCC R ac i ng w er e e xem pt , bu tthatw as base d o n the as sum pt i on thatthe tw o w er e se para t e e nt i t i es , w hi ch i n turn w as apparent l y bas ed on the further a ss um pt i on that the tw o c om pa ni e s di d noti nt e rm i ngl e a ny of the i rm one y . A s w e ha ve a l r e a dy no t ed, ho w ever , the evi dence attri al , vi ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o P er ez , s how e d tha tthe tw o c om pa ni e s s ha r e d a s i ngl e c r e di tc a r d, tha tC C C R a c i ng co n tro ll ed K en n el C lu b ’s o p er atin g ca sh , an d th at m o n ey fr o m K en n el C lu b ’s op er at i ng ac coun t s w as re corded as a pay abl e on C C C R ac i ng ’ s boo ks. S ee supra a t _

__ . C ha r l e s N e i l s on, a nothe rC P A a nd bus i ne s s c ons ul t a ntf orK e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R ac i ng , t es t i fi ed thathe had g ot t en a verbal op i ni on fr om B i l l K al i sh, an att orney w ho di d w ork for the C ol l i ns fa m i l y, abou tw hether the com pani es37

qua l i f i e d f orthe r e c r e a t i ona l a nd a m us e m e nte xe m pt i on. B a s e d on w ha tN e i l s on had t ol d h i m , K al i sh advi se d thatthe exem pt i on appl i ed and h e pas se d thatadvi ce al on g t o p ri nci pal s i n the com pani es . A l tho ug h h e t es t i fi ed thatK al i sh w as aw ar e of ho w the com pani es had b ee n setup , N ei l son d i d n ott es t i fythatK al i sh kn ew that on e c on trol l ed the other’ s opera t i ng ca sh or abou tho w the m on eyof on e w as tr e a te d a s a p a y ab le o n th e o th e r ’s b o o k s . T he f i na l w i tne s s t o t e s t i f

y f orK e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng on thi s i s s ue w a s J a c k C o llin s , J r . H e te s tif ie d th a t a f

te rh e s e t u p C C C R a c in g h e p e r s o n a lly c a l l e d B i l l K a l i s h f

ora dvi c e aboutw he the rthe tw o c om pa ni e s w e r e e xe m pt , a nd K a l i s h a dvi s e d hi m tha tthe y w e r e e xe m pt . H e a l s o s a i d tha the ha d r e c e i ve d the s a m e a d v ic e f

r o m h is p a y r o ll c o m p a n y . H is te s tim o n y , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t in d ic a te w ha t , i f a ny thi ng, he di s c l os e d t o a tt orne y K a l i s h orthe pa y r ol l c om pa ny aboutthe f in a n c ia l in te r - r e la tio n s h ip s a n d d e a lin g s b e tw e e n th e c o m p a n ie s . A l l three of these w i tness es w er e c ross -e xam i ned, and the j ury had an o p p o r tu n ity to o b s e rv e th e ird e m e a n o ra n d c o m e to a c o n c lu s io n ab o u t th e ir c r e di bi l i ty . T he j ury c oul d ha ve be e n pe r s ua de d nott o be l i e ve the t e s t i m ony of th ese w i tn esses fo r sev eral reaso n s. O n e i s th atth e att o rn ey B i l l K al i sh , o n w h o se opi ni on K e nne l C l ub a nd C C C R a c i ng s uppos e dl y r e l i e d, di d nott e s t i f y . A tthe tim e o f th is tr ia l, w h ic h w a s h e ld in O r la n d o , K a lis h ’s o f f ic e w a s e ig h ty o rn in e ty38

m i l es aw ay i n T am p a. H e d i d l eg al w o rk fo r th e co m p an i es an d th ei r p ri n ci p al s, a nd the y c oul d ha ve c a l l e d hi m a s a w i tne s s . T he y f a i l e d t o do s o, a nd no e x p la n a tio n f

o rth a t f a ilu r e ap p e a r s in th e r e c o r d . T he s a m e i s true of

the f a i l ur e t o c a l l the pe r s on a tthe pa y r ol l c om pa ny w ho supp osedl y a dv i se d K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng thatthey w er e e xem pt . T hat p e r s o n w a s n o t c a lle d a n d , a g a in , n o e x p la n a tio n f o rth e f a ilu r e to d o s o ap p e a r s in the r e c or d. T he j ury c oul d ha ve f ound i tt e l l i ng tha tne i the rof the tw o pe opl e w ho al l egedl y a rr i ved atthe op i ni on on w hi ch K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng re l i ed w as c a lle d to te s tif

y th a t h e a c tu a lly d id r e n d e rth a t o p in io n o rth e b a s is f o rit. T h e j u ry al so j u st i fi ab l y co u l d h av e b een sk ep t i cal ab o u tth e o p i n i o n b ecau se i tw as no tre du ce d t o w ri t i ng by ei ther a tt orney K al i sh or the un i dent i fi ed pers on at the payr ol l com pany, or otherw i se re fl ec t ed i n any do cum ent . B uteven i f the j ury c r e di t e d a l l of

the t e s t i m ony of

the thr e e w i tne s s e s w ho t e s t i f i e d aboutthe o p i n i o n s , i ts t i l l r e a s o n ab l y c o u l d h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a tK e n n e l Cl u b a n d CCC R a c in g a c te d w illf

u lly , b e c a u s e th e y a n d th o s e a c tin g o n th e irb e h a lf f a ile d to s uppl y K a l i s h a nd the pa y r ol l c om pa ny w i th a l l of the i nf orm a t i on ne e de d t o a rr i ve a t a n in f o rm e d o p in io n o n th e s u b je c t. F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e c onc l ude tha tthe j ury r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve concl ud ed thatK ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng ’ s vi ol at i on s of the F L S A w er e39

w illf u l. T h e e v id e n c e d id n o t c o m p e l th e ju ry to r e a c h th e c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n . A nd , as w e have al re ady e xp l ai ned atsom e l ength, the j ury’ s f i nd i ng on that w i l l ful ness i ss ue rul ed ou ta l at erfi nd i ng by the j ud ge of go od fa i th. Itfol l ow s that th e d i stri ctco u rterred b y d en yi n g P erez’s m o t i o n fo r l i q u i d at ed d am ag es. V. In concl usi on , w e AF F I RM th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in s o f

a ra s it deni es K ennel C l ub and C C C R ac i ng ’ s m ot i on s f or j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw a n d g r a n ts C o llin s , S r .’s r e n e w e d m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w . W e R EVER SE the j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tc our tde ny i ng l i qui da t e d da m a ge s a nd RE MAND f

o re n try o f

a ju d g m e n t th a t in c lu d e s liq u id a te d d a m a g e s .