United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10219

Summary Calendar

Alondra Portillo, and all others similarly situated 

under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Kincaid Incorporated; Campuzano Midlothian L.L.C.; 

Campuzano Cedar Hill L.L.C., 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CV-1759

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alondra Portillo contests the district court’s denial of liquidated 

damages and the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to her. Because the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2020
No. 20-10219

2

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying liquidated damages and 

awarding attorney’s fees, we AFFIRM. 

I.

Between 2013 and 2018, Alondra Portillo was a hostess and then a

food server for Campuzano’s Restaurants in Dallas, Texas. Portillo brought 

claims against Kincaid, Inc., Campuzano Midlothian L.L.C., and Campuzano 

Cedar Hill L.L.C. (collectively, Portillo’s “employer”) for failure to pay 

minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(the “FLSA”). Central to Portillo’s claim was that her pay stubs reflected 

that she was paid only $2.13 per hour and that she was never notified that her 

employer was using the FLSA’s “tip credit” to raise her pay to the minimum 

wage of $7.25 per hour.

A jury found that Portillo’s employer had violated the FLSA by failing 

to pay the applicable minimum wage or overtime, and it awarded Portillo 

$20,577.27 in damages, but it found that the FLSA violations were not willful.

The district court awarded Portillo $29,880 in attorney’s fees and $4,412.06 

in costs. After the jury returned its verdict, Portillo filed a motion for 

liquidated damages, which her employer opposed. The district court denied 

Portillo’s motion for liquidated damages “for the reasons stated in [the

employer’s opposition to the motion]” and added a footnote specifying that 

it “decline[d] to exercise its discretion to award liquidated damages.” 

Portillo filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

We review the district court’s denial of liquidated damages and award 

of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Singer v. City of Waco, Tx., 324 F.3d 

813, 823, 829 (5th Cir. 2003).

Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2020
No. 20-10219

3

An employer who violates the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime 

provisions is liable not only for the unpaid compensation but also for “an 

additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). But a 

district court may decline to award liquidated damages if it finds that the 

employer acted in “good faith” and had “reasonable grounds” to believe its 

actions complied with the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 260; Singer, 324 F.3d at 822-

23. An employer faces a “substantial burden” of proving good faith and 

reasonableness. Steele v. Leasing Enterprises, Ltd., 826 F.3d 237, 246 (5th Cir. 

2016) (citing Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc., 899 F.2d 1407, 1415 (5th Cir. 1990)). 

“Evaluation of the evidence supporting good faith and reasonableness, 

however, is a discretionary determination.” Id. (citing Cox v. Brookshire 

Grocery Co., 919 F.2d 354, 357 (5th Cir. 1990)).

It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny 

liquidated damages. To begin, although the jury found that Portillo’s 

employer had failed to pay Portillo the minimum wage and overtime, it found

that the employer did not willfully violate the FLSA. Establishing willfulness 

requires that the plaintiff show that the employer “knew or showed reckless 

disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the 

statute.” Steele, 826 F.3d at 248 (quoting McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 

486 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1988)). Portillo argues that an absence of willfulness 

can co-exist with an absence of good faith. Maybe so. But the question, in this 

case, is not whether the absence of willfulness can co-exist with the absence 

of good faith but simply whether Portillo’s employer satisfied its burden of 

good faith. 

Evidence adduced at trial supports the district court’s good-faith 

determination. Specifically, Portillo’s employer’s practice was to have its 

managers inform the employees of how their pay is determined. Her 

employer also testified that there were posters in different locations such as 

the kitchens advising employees of their overtime and minimum wage rights.

Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2020
No. 20-10219

4

At least some of these posters were purchased from individuals who visit 

restaurants and sell posters to them for the very purpose of helping 

restaurants maintain FLSA compliance. Finally, Portillo’s employer had no 

reason to suspect that it was out of compliance with the FLSA and noted at 

trial that there had been no complaints from its employees. 

III.

Additionally, Portillo argues that her award of attorney’s fees should 

be increased if liquidated damages are imposed and that the amount of her 

award was improperly reduced. Because the district court’s denial of 

liquidated damages was not an abuse of discretion, we need not decide

whether the attorney’s fees awarded to Portillo should be increased on that 

basis. Portillo’s argument that the amount of attorney’s fees was improperly 

reduced is without merit in light of the district court’s thorough explanation 

of the award.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/14/2020