Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30506 Su m m ar y Cal endar H IL D AL S O L IS , S E C R E T A R Y , D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. HOOGL AND S NUR S ER Y , L . L . C. ; MI CHA EL HOOG L AND , D efen d a n ts - A p p ell a n ts

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he W e s t e r n Di s t r i c t o f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 5: 07- C V
- 533 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h i s is a n a pp ealf rom t h e di st ri ctcourt ' s or der gran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en tf

or Pl ai n t i ff o n beh al f of vari ou s em pl oyees of D efen da n t s M i cha el H oo g la n d a n d H o o g la n d s N u r s e r y . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th a t t h e s e D e fen d a n ts vi o l at e d t he o ve r t i m e a nd r e c o r d- ke e pi ng pr o vi s i o ns of t he Fai r Lab o r St and ar ds

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 7, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-30506 Document: 00511072939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 30506

The district court also he ld that Defendant Fre dric Hooglan d was not an "employer" 1 und er the FL SA and dismissed hima s a party . Appell ant s do not disputethis holdingon appeal. Appell ant s argue that th eyar e not r es p on sibl e fo r th e e mployees' reductioninpay

2 because the decision to reducepay was not theirs but that of their b ookkeeper . I n addition to ignoringba sic a ge ncyprinciples, this argument i gnores our hol ding that an employer r emain s liablefor FL SA violation s whenth e viol atio ns we re aresult of de cisio ns b y a lower-leve l em pl oyeeevenu n de r th e high erst a n dardf orawardin gliquid ate d da ma ges . See, .e. g. , LeC omptev. C

hrys ler CreditC

orp. , 78 0 F .2d 1 260 , 12 63 (5th Cir. 198 6) (defendant's "atte mpt to thwart liabilityba sed onit s assert ed i gnorance of [lo wer-level employees'] abu ses is legally u n av ailin g ") . 2 A ct( " F L S A " ). T h e di st ri ctcourtaw arded i nj u n ct i ve rel i ef, com pen sator y d a m a g e s , a n d liq u id a te dd a m a g e s . T h e s e D e fe n d a n t s a p p e a l t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t 's 1 o r de ra s i tr e l at e s t o i t s no n- s al ar i e d e m pl o ye e s , a r gui ng t hatt he r e w e r e g e nui ne i s s ue s o f

fac tre ga r di ng w he t he r t he i r dayra t e pl an w as i nva l i d un de r t he FLSA and w he t he rt he y ac t e d i n g o o d fai t h. Af t e r a re vi e w o f

t he r e c o r d, w e f

i nd n o e r r o ra n d A F F I R M.

" W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ' s gr anto f s um m ar y j udg m e ntde no vo , us i ng th e s a m e s ta n d a r d a s t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t." Ikoss i
-A n ast asi ou v. B d . of S u pervi sors of La. St at e Uni v. , 5 7 9 F .3d 5 4 6 , 5 4 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) ( cita tion om itted ).

" S u m m ary j u dg m en ti s properl y gran t ed on l y w h en there i s n o gen u i n e i ssue of an y m ater i alfactan d the m ovin g p a rty i s enti t l ed to j u dg m en t as a m att er of l a w . " I d. ( c i t i ng F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c)). 1. A pp el l an t s f

i rstargu e th a t t h ere r em ai n ed a gen u i n e i ssue of fact regard i n g w h et h er t h ei r day-r ate m et h od of pay i n g t h ei r em pl oyees m et th e sta n d a rd s of 29 C . F . R . § 77 8 . 1 1 2 . H ow ev er, A p p ell a n ts con ced e b oth bef ore the di st ri ctcou rta n d on a pp ealt h at t h ei r em pl oyees' w ages w ere r educ ed w hen t he e m pl oye es w or ked l ess t han a f ul lday. Acc or di ngl y,

2 A p p ell a n ts did n ot h a ve a v a l i d da y-ra te p l a n i n u se, a n d the i r fa i l u re to pa y t he i re m pl o ye e s o ve r t i m e c o m pe ns at i o n pa y f o r t i m e w o r ke d b e yo nd for ty h o u rs p e r w e e k v iola te d 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 0 7 (a )(1). Case: 09-30506 Document: 00511072939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 30506

3 2 . Ap p e l l a n t s n e x tc o n c e d e t h a t t h e y fa i l e d t o p a y t he i r e mp l o y e e s f o rt wo f i f t een - m i n u t e breaks per da y, i n vi ol ati on o f the F L S A . N evert h el ess, A ppel l ant s ar gue t hat thei r pu r por t ed ove r paym entt o t hei r em pl oye es as par tof t hei rday- r at e pl an c om pensa t ed f orthe s hor t fal l , pu r suantt o 2 9 C. F. R. § 77 8. 20 2( a) . H o w e ve r , as t he di s t r i c t c o ur t properl y he l d, A pp el l an t s di d n otem pl oy a vali d d ay-r a te p l an , becau se t h ey redu ced em pl oyees' p ay f

or hou rs t h ey di d n otw ork. A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ctcourt p rop erly con cl u d ed tha t A p p ell a n ts re m a in l i a b l e for the am ou n ts ded u ct ed f

rom t h ei r em pl oyees' com pen sabl e break p eri ods. 3. F i n al l y , A p pel l an t s argue that even i f t h ey vi ol ated t h e F L S Aby n ot i mp l e me n t i n ga p r o p e rd a y - r a t e p l a n a n d fa i l e d t o p a y p r o p e r o v e r t i me com pen sati on , t h ere r em ai n ed a qu est i on of factas t o w h et h er A pp el l an t s' fai l ur e s w e r e i n g o o d fai t h, t hus pr e c l udi ng an awar d o f l i qui da t ed da m ages. Liqui da t ed d am ages are aw arded as a m atte r o f cou rse f or v io la t i o n s o f 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 0 7 . S ee 29 U . S. C . § 216(b) . Purs uant t o 2 9 U . S . C . § 260 , h ow ever, a di st ri ct court m ay decl i n e t o aw a rd li qu i da t ed d a m a g e s if th e e m p lo y e r d e m o n s t r a t e s th a t it a c te d re a s o n a b ly a n d in g o o d fa ith . Hei d t m an v. Cou n ty of E lPaso , 171 F . 3d 103 8, 104 2 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). N ev erth eless, e ve n if a d efen d a n t sh ow s bo th su b j ective g oo d fa i th a n d o b je c tiv e r e a s o n a b le n e s s , a n a w a r d o f liq u id a te d d a m a g e s re m a in s in th e d is c r e tio n o f th e d is t r i c t co u r t. S ee § 2 6 0 ; He i dt m an , 171 F. 3d at 1 0 4 2 . A f

t err evi ew i ng t he r ec or d, t he di st r i c t c our t c or r ec t l y hel d t hat Appe l l ant s " ha[ve ] s ubm i t t e d no e vi de nc e t hat[ t he i r ] r e l i an ce on a book keep er w i t h no m an ageri al a u t h ori t y t o ensu re [ t h ei r] com pl i an ce w i t h t h e F L S Aw as reasonab l e. " A ccor di n gl y, A pp el l an t s hav e not c arri ed t hei rbur den of

s how i ng goo d fai t h, and an aw ar d l i qui dat ed dam ages w as proper. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-30506 Document: 00511072939 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2010