2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-27-2010 

# Mich a el P i gn at aro v

. P or t Authority of N ew Y

ork and
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3605

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Mich a e l P i gn at a r o v

. P or t Author ity of N ew Y

ork a nd " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1959. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1959P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________ N os . 08- 3605 /08- 3825

________ M I CH A EL G
. PI G N A TA RO ; TH O M PSO N R. CH A SE

v. P O R T A U T H O R IT Y O F N E W Y O R K A N D N E W J E R S E Y , a b i- S tat e a g en cy ; JO H N D O E S 1 -5 a n d Jan e D o es 1 -5 (a g e n ts, re p re se n tativ e s a n d /o r e m p lo y e e s o f th e P o rt A u t h o r i t y o f

N e w Y o r k a n d N e w J e r s e y) T he Por tA ut hor i t yof N e w Y o r k a n d N e w J e r s e y, A ppel l anti n 08- 3605

________
M IC H A E L G . P IG N A T A R O ; T H O M P S O N R . C H A S E , A ppel l ant s i n 08- 3825 v. P O R T A U T H O R IT Y O F N E W Y O R K A N D N E W J E R S E Y , a b i- S tat e a g en cy ; JO H N D O E S 1 -5 a n d Jan e D o es 1 -5 ( agent s , r epr es ent at i ves and/ orempl oy ees of t h e P o r tA u t h o r i t y o f

N e w Y o r k a n d N e w J e r s e y)2 _________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 01767) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D enni s M
. C avana ugh

__________ A r gued N ovember 19, 2009 Bef or e : RE N D ELL , BA RR Y , a nd CH A G A RE S,

C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J anuary27, 2010)

C h ri s tin e C . L ilo re , E s q . [ ARGUE D] 386 M ai n St r eet W y ckoff , N J 07481 C ouns el f orAppel l ees i n 08- 3605 and Appel l ant

s i n 08- 3825 Mi cha elG

. P ign ataro an d T ho m pson R

. C ha se3 S h a ro n K . M c G a h e e , E s q . [ ARGUE D] Por tA ut hor i t yof N ew Y or k & N ew J er s ey L aw D epart m ent , O pi ni ons & A ppeal s D i v. 2 2 5 P a rk A v e n u e S o u th 13t h Fl oor , R oom 1324 N ew Y or k, N Y 10003 C ouns el f orAppel l ee i n 08- 3825 and Appel l anti n 08- 3605 P or tA uthor i t

y of N ew Y or k and N

ew Jer s ey, a bi

- St at e agenc

y

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. I n t hi s appea l t he Por t A ut hor i t y of N ew Y or k and N ew Jerse y(th e “ P o rtA u th o ri ty ”) c h all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of M i chae l Pi gnat ar o and T h o m p so n C h a se . T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t h e lico p ter p ilo ts a re n o t ex e m p t as “ p ro f e ss io n a l” e m p lo yee s u n d e r th e F a ir L abor St andar ds A ct ( “FL SA ”) , 29 U
. S. C
. § 207( a) ( 1 ), and t h e r e f o r e a r e e n t i t l e d t o mand a t o r yt i me - a n d

- a - h a l f o v e r t i me compensa t i on. It aw ar ded Pi gnat ar o and C has e tw o y ear s of d am ag es, rather tha n three , b ec au se itco n clud ed th a t th e P o rt A ut hor i t y ’ s FL S A v i ol at i on w as notw i l l ful

. Pi gnat ar o and4 T h o m p so n a p p e a l th a t a sp e c t o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r, w h ile t he Por tA ut hor i t ych all enges the deni al of the exe m pt i on and t he C our t ’ s aw ar d of pr ej udgm enti nt er es t
. For t he r eas ons t hat fol l ow , w e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n al l t hr ee res pects
. I . Backg r ound P i gn a tar o beg an w orki ng for the P ortA uthori t yas a h e lico p ter p ilo t in 1 9 8 2 a n d re tired in 2 0 0 4 . T h e P o rt A u th o rity h ire d C h a se in 1 9 7 7 a n d p ro m o ted h im to h e lico p ter p ilo t in 1982. B eca us e the Por t A ut hor i t y cl as s i fi ed hel i copt erpi l ot s as “pr ofes s i onal ” empl oy ees under t he FL SA , bot h Pi gnat ar o and C has e w er e deem ed exem pt fr om t he over t i m e pr ovi s i ons of the F L S A
. In A p ril 2 0 0 4 , P ig n a tar o a n d C h a se f iled a c o m p lain t in t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta l l e g i n g t h a tt h e ywe r e d e n i e d p r o p e ro v e r t i me p a yu n d e r t h e F L S A f

o r t h e p re v io u s th re e y e a rs . O n February9, 2006, t he D i s t r i ct C our thel d t hat he l i c op t e r pi l ot s a r e no tpr of e s s i on a l e mpl oy e e s un de rt he FLSA and grant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of P i gn at aro and C hase o n the issu e o f li ab il ityo n ly

. O n M arc h 3 , 2 0 0 6 , the P o rt A ut hor i t yappea l ed thi s rul i ng, but w e di s m i s s ed the appe al on February23, 2007 beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derw as not fi nal

. O n A ugus t11, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tentered a m onet aryj udgm enti n favor of Pi gnat ar o and C has e, aw ar di ng Pi g n ataro $ 6 7 , 9 0 7
. 2 3 in u n p aid o v erti m e w ag es p lus $ 1 9, 177. 10 i n pr ej udgm enti nt er es t( t ot al i ng $87, 084. 33) and aw ar di ngT h e p arti es d o n o t dispu te t h at th e F L S A ap p li es to the P o rt 1 A u t h o r i t y. 5 C h a se $ 5 0 ,6 2 6 .8 0 in u n p a id o v e rtim e w a g e s p lu s $ 1 4 ,2 9 7 .1 4 in pr ej udgm enti nt er es t( t ot al i ng $64, 923. 94)

. C oncl udi ng t hatt he Por tA ut hori ty ’ s vi ol at i on of the FL SA w as notw i l l ful , t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s a w a rd w as based o n tw o y ears of d am ages, i ns t ead of

t hr ee. Sum m aryj udgm ent i s appr opr i at e i f ther e ar e no genui ne iss u e s o f m a te ria l f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . Fed. R
. C i v. P. 56( c)

. A ft er m ak in g all rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce s in the n o n m o v ing p arty ’s f a v o r , th e re is a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t if a re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld f

in d f o r t h e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . R el i ance I ns . C o. v. Moes s ner , 121 F. 3d 895, 900 ( 3d C i r . 1997)

. O urr evi ew of the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t is p le n a ry. Id

. We have j ur i s di ct i on t o h ea rt hi s appea l under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291.

I I . H e l i c opt e r Pi l ot s ’ C l as s i f i c at i on und e r t he FL SA T h e F L S A m an d ates th a t if a n em p loy ee w o rks m o re

1 t h a n f o r t yh o u r s p e r we e k , h e mu s tb e c o mp e n s a t e d f o ro v e r t i me h our s ata r at e atl eas tone- and- one- hal f t i m es t he empl oy ee ’s r egul ar r at e. 29 U
. S. C
. § 207( a) ( 1)

. E m pl oy ees w ho w or k i n a “pr ofes s i onal capa ci t y , ” how ever , are exempt fr om t hi s rul e.T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot es t hatt he D epart m ent o f Labor 2 r evi s ed the FL SA ’ s r egul at i ons governi ng exempt i ons eff ect i ve A u g u st 23 , 2 0 0 4
. B ec au se th e v iola tion s all eg ed in P ign ataro and C has e’ s compl ai ntoccurr ed pr i o r to t hi s r evi s i on, t he D i stri ctC ou rtapp l i ed the previ ou s vers io n of the regul at i on s. W e w i l l do t he s ame - al l ci t at i ons ar e t o t he 2000 edi t i on of the C
. F. R
. , unl es s ot herw i s e not ed. W e not e, how ever , t hatunder th e c u rr e n t re g u la tio n s w e w o u ld lik e ly re a c h t h e s a m e re s u lt. 6 29 U
. S. C
. § 213( a) ( 1)

. E x em p ti o n s fr om t he FL SA ar e t o be 2 narr ow l ycons t rued aga i ns t t he empl oy er , and t he empl oy erhas th e b u rd e n o f e s ta b lis h in g a n e x e m p tio n . G uthr i e v. Lady Jane C ol l i er i es , I

nc . , 722 F. 2d 1141, 1143 ( 3d C i r . 1983)

. W hether hel i copt erpi l ot s ar e exe m ptpr ofes s i onal s i s a mi xed ques t i on of l aw and fa ct ; w e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctfor cl earerro r a nd exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overi t s i nt erpr et at i on a n d a p p lic a tio n o f

th e e x e m p tio n . R ei ch v. G at ew ay Pres s , I nc. , 1 3 F .3 d 6 8 5 , 6 9 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T h e a p p li ca b le ex em p ti o n fro m the F L S A u rge d h ere encompas s es empl oy ees w ho ar e det er m i ned t o be m ember s of t he “l earned” pr ofes s i ons , as defi ned by 29 C
. F. R
. §§ 541. 3 and 5 4 1 .3 0 1 . A n e m p lo y e e ’s s tatu s a s a “ lea rn e d p ro f e ss io n a l” is det er m ine d byhi s orherdut i es and s al ary . 29 C
. F. R
. § 541. 3. In o rde r t o q u ali fyas a “lea rne d p ro fe ssion al” a n em p loy ee ’s pr i m arydut i es m us tcons i s tof:U n d e r th e c u rre n t v e rsio n o f th e re g u latio n s, th is th re sh o ld 3 is $ 4 5 5 p e r w e e k . 2 9 C .F .R . § 5 4 1 .3 0 0 (2 0 0 9 ). T h is h a s b e c o m e k n o w n a s th e “ sh o rt te s t, ” a p p li c a b le to 4 e m p lo y e e s w h o e a rn m o re th a n $ 2 5 0 p e r w e e k

. R ei ch , 13 F. 3d at698 n. 15. 7 [w ] or k r equi r i ng kn o w l edge of an adva nce [ s i c] typ e in a f

ield o f sc ien c e o r le a rn in g c u st o m a rily acqui r ed bya pr ol onged c our s e of s peci al i zed i nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on and s tudy , as di s t i ngui s hed fr om a gene r al aca demi c educ at i on an d from an appr ent i ces hi p, and fr om t r ai ni ng i n t he p e r f o r ma n c e o f r o u t i n e me n t a l , ma n u a l , or p h y s ic a l p ro c e s s e s . 2 9 C .F .R . § 5 4 1 .3 (a )(1 ); s ee al s o 2 9 C. F
. R. § 5 4 1
. 3 0 1 (a). W hi l e t her e ar e addi t i onal r equi r ement s for“l earned pr ofes s i onal ” s t atus , namel yr ece i ptof compensa t i on exce edi ng $250 orm or e perw eek an d d ut i es r equi r i ng t he exe r ci s e of 3 d iscreti o n , w e c o n c e rn o u rselve s init ial lyw ith w h ethe r P o rt

4 A ut hor i ty h el i copt erpi l ot s s at i s fyt he r equi r ement s under § 5 4 1 .3 (a )( 1 ). See 29 C
. F. R
. § 541. 3( e)

. W e t hus cons i derw hat advanc ed know l ed ge “i n a fi el d of s ci ence orl earni ng cus t om ar i l yacqui r ed bya pr ol onged cour s e of s peci al i zed i nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on” ent ai l s , and then exa m i ne w hether8 Pi gnat ar o and C has e’ s pr im arydut i es r equi r ed s uch adva nced k n o w le d g e . A dvance d know l edge i s know l edge “ w hi ch ca nnotbe at t ai ned att he hi gh s chool l evel , ” 29 C
. F
. R
. § 541. 301( b) , and wh i c h h a s b e e n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h “ p r o l o n g e d s tu d y . ” 2 9 C. F
. R. § 541. 300. T he l earned prof es s i onal exempt i on i s avai l abl e for pr ofes s i ons w her e, i n t he “vas t m aj or i t y of cas es , ” t he empl oy ee i s r e q u i r e d t o h a v e “ s p e c i f i c a c a d e mi c t r a i n i n g . ” 2 9 C. F
. R. § 5 4 1 .3 0 1 (d ). T h e e x e m p tio n d o e s n o t ap p lyto o c c u p a tio n s in w hi ch “the bul k of the empl oy ees have a cqui r ed thei rs ki l l by exper i ence . ” I

d. A n “ a d v a n c e d a c a d e m ic d e g re e is a stan d a rd (if n o tu n i v e r s a l ) p r e q u i s i t e [ s i c ] ” a nd i s , i n f a c t , “ t h e b e s tp r i ma f a c i e e v i d e n c e o f [p rof essio n a l tr a i n i n g ].” 29 C
. F. R
. § 541. 301( e) ( 1)

. T h e req u ir em en t th at t h e e m p loy ee ’s k n o w led g e b e f

ro m a f ield o f sc ien c e o r le a rn in g “ se rv e s to d istin g u ish th e p ro f

e ss io n s f ro m th e m e c h a n ica l ar ts w h e re in s om e i ns t ance s t he know l edge i s of a f ai r l yadvanc ed type, but n o t i n a f

iel d o f sc ienc e o r l ea rnin g . ” 2 9 C
. F
. R
. § 5 4 1 .3 0 1 (c ). E x a m p les o f

p ro f e ss io n s in c lu d e d in th e “ lea rn e d p ro f e ss io n a l” exempt i on ar e the fi el ds of “l aw , m edi ci ne, nur s i ng, acc ount i ng, actuar i al comput at i on, eng ine er i ng, ar chi t ectur e, t eac hi ng, vari ou s types of

ph y si cal , chem i cal , and bio lo gical sci ences, in c lu d in g p h a rm a c y .” 2 9 C .F .R . § 5 4 1 .3 0 1 (e )( 1 ). A l t hough a col l ege or o t hers peci fi c degr ee maynotbe per se r equi r ed t o qual i fy as a “l earned pr ofes s i onal , ” i ti s cl ear t hatempl oy ees m us tpos s es s know l edge and ski l l “w hi ch ca nnot“A cade m i c” means “[o] f, r el at i n g to, o r char act er i s t i c of a 5 s chool [or ] [p]er t ai ni ng t o l i ber al orcl as s i cal r athert han t echni cal or vocat i onal educa t i on. ” W ebs t er ’s I I N ew R i ver s i de D i ct i onar

y 6 9 (19 8 8 ). T he Por tA ut hor i t ycont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by 6 notcons i der i ng Pi gnat ar o and C has e’ s day

- t o- daydut i es and by fo cu sing instead so lel y o n their cred en ti als. W e f ind n o erro r. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons i der ed w het h er Pi gnat ar o and C hase’s pri m arydu t i es r equi r ed advance d know l edge ac qui r ed by prol onged s

peci al iz ed i ns tr uct i on and s t udy

. ( Ap p . 7
. ) To conductt hi s anal y s i s , t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt neede d t o l ook att he q u ali fica ti o n s an d ce rt ifi ca ti o n s req u ir e d to p erf o rm P ign ataro an d C h ase ’s da il yd u ti es a s h eli co p te r pil o ts atthe P o rt A ut hor i t y . T he dut i es t hatt he Por tA ut hori ty al l eges t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti gnor ed (pr e- fl i ghti ns pect i on, deci s i ons on w eathercondi t i ons , and m ai nt ai ni ng dai l yfl i ghtl ogs , for 9 be att ai ned att he hi gh s chool l evel ” an d w h i ch has been o b tai n ed thro u g h “p rolo n g ed stud y . ” 2 9 C
. F
. R
. § § 5 4 1
. 3 0 1 (b); 541. 300. Fur ther m or e, s om e type of a c a d e m ic d e g re e is 5 r equi r ed, as oppos ed t o sk il l acqui r ed thr ough exper i ence . 2 9 C .F .R . § 5 4 1 .3 0 1 (e )( 1 ). W e nextexami ne w hethert he tr ai ni ng and s tudy P ig n a tar o a n d C h a s e w e re re q u ire d to c o m p lete c o n stitu te “adva nced know l edge i n a fi el d of s ci ence orl earni ng cus t om ar i l yacqui r ed bya pr ol onged cour s e of s peci al i zed intell ec tual instruction

. ” In o rde r t o q u ali fy fo r th eir j o b s, P o rt 6exampl e) do notr equi r e any fur t heri nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on or a c a d e m ic s tu d yth a n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o n s id e re d

. A h e lico p ter in stru m e n t ra ti n g is re q u ire d f o r p ilo ts to f

ly 7 w ith o u t a n yv is u a l r e f

e re n c e to th e g ro u n d

. “I nt el l ectual ” means of orr el at i ng t o “the capac i t yfor 8 under s t andi ng and know l edge [ or ] [t ] he abi l i t yt o t hi nk 10 A ut hor i t yhel i copt er pi l ot s m us tful fi l l t he fol l ow i ng requi rem ents : (1) l og 2, 00 0 hou rs of fl y i ng t i m e i n h el i cop t ers ; ( 2) earn a comm er ci al hel i copt erpi l otcert i fi cat e w i t h a hel i copt eri ns t rum entr ati ng; ( 3) earn a Feder al A vi at i on 7 A dm i ni s t r at i on ( “FA A ”) Second C l as s M edi ca l c er t i fi cat e; ( 4) have know l edge of FA A rul es and r egul at i ons governi ng h e l i c o p t e rf

l i g h t s ; a n d ( 5 ) e a rn a h i g h s c h o o l d i p l o ma o rGE D. ( A pp. 1 8 2, 318. ) I n or dert o earn a comm er ci al cert i fi cat e, app l i cants m ustal readyho l d a p ri vate pi l ot cer t i fi cat e and pass bot h a know l edge a nd pr act i cal t es t
. 14 C
. F. R
. § 61. 123. T he Por tA ut hor i t y s ends hel i copt er pi l ot s t o Fl or i da for a one- w eek tr a in in g , tw ic e e a c h y e a r. N o n e o f th e c erti fica ti o n s tha t helic o p te r pil o ts are r equi r ed t o have a r e ac ademi c degr ees . H el i copt erpi l ot s ar e not re q u ire d to sp e n d a sig n if ica n t am o u n t o f

tim e in a c las sro o m in or d e rt o e a r n t h e i rc e r t i f i c a t i o n s - n e a r l ya l l o f

t h e i n s t ru c t i on t akes pl ace i n t he ai r . L oggi ng i n- fl i ghthour s , i n-fl i ght i ns t ruct i on, and pas s i ng pr act i cal and w r i t t en t es t s do notqual i fy as a “p rol onged cour s e of s peci al i zed i nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on 8a b s t r a c t l y o r p r o f o u n d l y . ” W

ebs t er ’s I

I N ew R i ver

s i de D i ct i onar

y 6 3 4 -35 (19 8 8 ). T he Por tA ut hor i t ym ai nt ai ns t hat genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al 9 fac texi s tas t o t he dai l ydut i es of hel i copt er p il o ts, such that su b m issi o n to a juryw as re q u ir ed

. Itco n tend s tha t Pign ataro a n d C hase’s pri m ary du t i es, i ncludi ng fl y i ng and prepari ng to fly , inv o lved a d ail yex erc ise o f d iscreti o n . B ec au se P ign ataro 11 and s tudy

. ” W hi l e the Por tA ut hor i t yi s corr ectt hathel i copt er p il o ts ha v e “ sp ec ializ e d k n o w ledg e” an d “u n iqu e sk il ls” (P o rt A ut hor i t yB r . 12- 13) , t hi s i s nots uffi ci entt o qual i fyundert he l earned pr ofes s i onal exempt i on beca us e pi l ot s ’ know l edge a nd s ki l l s w er e ac qui r ed thr ough exper i ence and s uper vi s ed tr ai ni ng as oppos ed t o i nt el l ectual , aca demi c i ns t ruct i on. T he D ist ri ct C our tr eas oned thatpi l ot s ’ fl i ght cert i fi cat es r equi r e s peci al i zed in stru c tio n b e y o n d a h ig h sc h o o l e d u c a tio n , b u t d o n o t co n stitu te ad v an ce d ac ad em ic de g ree s. T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt det er m i ned thathel i copt erpi l ot s ar e “‘ m er el y hi ghl yt r ai ned t echni ci ans ’
. . . and ther efor e do notqual i fyas pr ofes s i onal empl oy ees undert he FL SA
. ” ( A pp. 7- 8 ( ci t i ng M ar t i n v. P enn Li ne Ser v. I

nc. , 4 1 6 F
. S u p p . 1 3 8 7 , 1 3 8 9 ( W. D
. P a . 1 9 7 6 ) ) )

. We ag ree an d co n clud e tha t Po rtA u tho ri tyh eli co p ter p ilo ts ’ w o rk d o e s n o t re q u ir e a d v a n c e d k n o w led g e th a t is c u sto m a rily a c q u i r e d f

r o m a p r o l o n g e d c o u r s e o f s p e c i a l i z e d i n s t ru c t i o n . We t herefore do no t reach t he is sues of w hetherP i gn at aro and C hase w e re sa lar ied e m p lo y e e s o r c o n sis ten tlye x e rc ise d d isc re tio n in t hei rw or k. O ur r eadi ng of the r egul at i on i n l i ghtof the

9and C has e do notdi s put e the Por tA ut hor i t y ’ s des cr i pt ion of t heirdu t i es, t here i s n o gen uine is sue of m at eri al fact

. B ecause w e conc l ude that the “w or k r equi r i ng advanc ed know l edge acqui r ed bypr ol onged s peci al i zed i ns t ruct i on and s tudy ” as pect i s nots at i s fi ed, w e nee d n otr eac h t he ques t i on of how m uch d is c re tio n is in v o lv e d in a h e lic o p te r p ilo t’ s d a ily d u tie s . T h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f h i s o wn 10 r egul at i on i s contr ol l i ng unl es s “pl ai nl yerroneous or i ncons i s t entw i t h t he r egul at i on. ” A uerv. R obbi ns , 5 1 9 U
. S. 4 5 2 , 4 6 1 (1 9 9 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). 12 r equi r ement s fort he j ob l eads us t o t he s ame concl us i on as t he D i s t r i ctC our t
. Por tA ut hor i t yhel i copt er pi l ot s ar e, t her efor e, not“l earned pr ofes s i onal s ” and a re n otexempt fr om t he p ro v is io n s o f

th e F L S A
. Th e De p a r t me n to f

La b o rh a s r e a c h e d t he s a me con cl usi on . A s w e agree w i t h the agenc y , w e need no tdis cuss t he degr ee of

defe r ence w e w oul d ow e t o t he agency ’ s vi ew on t he i s s ue. T he D epart m ent of L aborW age a nd H ourD i vi s i on

10 h a s n o ted th a t th e D e p a rtm e n t h a s tak e n th e p o sitio n th a t p ilo ts ar e notexempt pr ofes s i onal s beca us e “a vi at i on i s nota ‘ fi el d of s ci ence orl earni n g , ’ a nd .

. . t he know l edge r equi r ed t o be a pi l oti s not‘ cus t om ar i l yacqui r ed bya pr ol onged cour s e of s peci al i zed i nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on. ’ ” D efi ni ng and D el i m i t i ng th e E x e m p tio n s f

o r E x e c u tiv e , A d m in istra tiv e , P ro f e ss io n a l, O ut s i de Sal es and C om put er E m pl oy ees , 69 Fed. R eg. 2 2122, 2 2 1 5 6 (A p r. 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ).13 T he D ep artm entof LaborR evi ew B oar d ( t he “Boar d”) has al s o deci ded thatai r l i ne pi l ot s ar e not“lea r ned pr ofes s i onals” as de fi ned by29 C
. F. R
. §§ 541. 3 and 541. 301 beca us e ther e i s “no doubt ” thatai r l i ne pi l ot s do notm eett he

“ th re sh o ld p re re q u isite” o f “ f o rm a l sp e c ia liz e d a c a d e m ic t r ai ni ng i n a fi el d of s ci ence orl earni ng. ” I n r e U

. S

. P o stal S e r v . ANE T

& WNET

Co n tr a c t

s Reg a r d i n gRe v i e w & R econ sid erat i on of W

ag e R ates f

or A i rl i ne C ap t ains and F i rst O f f i cers , A R B C as e N o. 98- 131, 2000 W L 1100166, at*13- 14 (D ep ’to f L ab o r A d m in. R ev . B d

. A u g . 4 , 2 0 0 0 ). T h e B o ard f o u n d t h a ta l mo s ta l l o f

t h e p r o f e s s i o n s d e l i n e a t e d i n t h e C. F
. R. as “pr ofes s i onal ” re q u i r e col l ege orgr aduat e- l evel s tudy( one exce pt i on bei ng cert ai n nur s i ng degr ees t hatr equi r e compl et i ng a c o lle g e -l ik e a c a d e m ic p ro g ra m ). Id . In c o n tra st: the trainin g o f a ir li n e p il o ts i n this co u n try t ypi cal l yd o es notr evol ve ar ound s peci al i zed co l l e g e - t yp e a c a d e mi c i n s t ru c t i o n , b u tmor ec lo se lyre se m b les th e c las sic a p p re n tice sh ip m odel

- - a “s t ructur ed, s y s t emat i c pr ogr am of ont he- j ob s uper vi s ed tr ai ni ng” coupl ed w i t h a p ro g ra m o f

re la te d in s tru c tio n . I d. a t * 1 6 (c itin g 2 9 C .F .R . § 2 9 .4 (1 9 9 9 ))

. T h e B o a rd f

u rth e r n o ted th a t m a n yc o u rts h a v e h e ld th a t a s peci al i zed c ol l ege d eg ree i s r equi r ed t o m eett he “l earned p ro f e s s io n a l” e x e m p tio n . I d. a t * 2 9 n . 1 1
. Fo r e x a mpl e , t heT he W age a nd H ourD i vi s i on al s o n o tes thatt he D i s t r i ct 11 C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of T ex as h eld th at pilots are exem pt pr ofessi on al s (K i t t y H aw k A i r C ar

go, I nc. v. C hao , 304 F. S upp. 2d 897, 901 ( N
. D
. T ex. 2004) ( adopt i ng t he P aul C our t ’ s r eas oni ng) ) , w hi l e t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof 14 C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E ig h th C irc u it h e ld th a t “a irf ield oper at i on s peci al i s t s ” ar e not l earned pr ofes s i onal s beca us e they ar e onl yr equi r ed t o have a bache l or ’ s degr ee i n avi at i on ma n a g e me n to ra r e l a t e d f i e l d , o rf

o u ry e a r s o f

f u l l

- t i me exper i ence , oran equi val entcombi nat i on of educ at i on and exper i ence . F i

f e v. H a rm on , 1 7 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 7 (8th C ir

. 1999)

. T he F ife C our t hel d t hat“[t ] hi s i s advanc ed know l edge fr om a gener al aca demi c educat i on and fr om an appr ent i ces hi p, notfr om a pr ol onged cour s e of s peci al i zed i nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on. ” I

d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. I n addi t i on, t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he E l eventh C i r cui thel d t hatpr obat i on o ffi cers are not “l earned p rofessi on al s” becau se the ir educa t i onal r equi r ement ( a four

- y ear col l ege degr ee) i s gener al a n d n o t s p e c ia liz e d

. D y ba c h v

. Stat e of

Fl a. D e p’ tof Cor r. , 9 4 2 F
. 2 d 1 5 6 2 , 1 5 6 5 -66 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). T he B oar d and t he W age and H ourD i vi s i on al s o not ed, how ever , t hatt he C our t of A ppeal s for t he F i fth C i r cui ti n P aul v. P etr ol eum E qui

pm ent Tool

s , C o. , 7 0 8 F
. 2 d 1 6 8 , 1 7 5 (5th C ir

. 1983) , concl uded thatan ai rpl ane pi l otw as a “l earned p r o f e s s i o n a l ” a n d wa s t h e r e f o r e e x e mp tf

r o m th e o v e r t i me p r o v isio n s o f

th e F L S A
. 6 9 F e d . R e g . at 2 2 1 5 6 ; I n r e U

. S. 11O r e g o n h e ld th a t h e lico p ter p ilo ts a re n o t ex e m p t (R agnone v. B el o C or p. , 131 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1193- 94 ( D
. O r . 2001) )

. 69 Fed. R eg. at22156. W e q u e stio n w h e th e r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e F if

th 12 C i r cui tw oul d r eac h t he same r es ul t i f the i s s ue w er e pr es ent ed t oday

. Si nce de ci di ng P aul , t hatC o u rt h as i s s ued tw o ot her opi ni ons on sim il ar i s s ues . I thel d t hatemer gencym edi cal s er vi ces empl oy ees do nothave the nec es s aryaca demi c tr ai ni ng to be “ l earned p rofessi on al s” becau se theyare not requi red to have a col l ege degr ee a nd i ns t ead ne ed onl y“di dact i c tr ai ni ng, cl i ni cal exper ience , and fi el d i nt erns hi p. ” V ela v. C i t

y of Hou s t on , 276 F. 3d 659, 675 ( 5t h C i r . 2001)

. T he V e la C o u rt c ite d a D is tr ic t o f

M a ryla n d c a s e , Q u irk

v . B a lt. C o u n ty , 895 F. Sup p . 773 ( D
. M d. 1995) , i n w hi ch the C our tfound that p a ra m e d ics a re n o t lea rn e d p ro f e ss io n a ls b e c a u se th e yw e re o n ly 15 Pos t al Serv ., 2 0 0 0 W L 1 1 0 0 1 6 6 at *1 3 -14
. T h e B o ard “r es pect ful l ydi s agree[d] w i t h t he Paul m aj or i t y ’ s anal y t i cal appr oach a n d concl us i on. ” In re U

. S. P ost al Serv

. , 2 0 0 0 WL 1100166 at *14. D es pi t e P aul , t he W age a nd H ourD i vi s i on deci ded nott o m o d i fyi t s pos i t i on t hatpi l ot s ar e notexempt p rof essio n als. 6 9 F ed

. R eg . at 2 2 1 5 6
. N o t surp ri sing ly , the P o rt Au t h o r i t y u r g e s t h a twe s h o u l d f o l l o w P aul

. W e n o te th a t P aul w as d ec ided ap p rox im atelytw o d ec ad es p ri o r t o the B o ard ’s deci s i on and the W age and H our D i vi s i on’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the exempt i on t hat w e ci t e, and the P aul C our ts t at ed thatt he W age and H ourD i vi s i on’ s i n terpr et at i ons ar e ent i t l ed t o “gr eat w eigh t. ” 7 0 8 F
. 2 d at 17 3 (cit ati o n o m itted). 12req u ir ed to h av e 6 0 0 h o u rs of class ro o m an d field training

. In co n tr ast, the F ift h C ir cu ith as a lso h e ld that athleti c traine rs sa tisf yth e e d u c a tio n c o m p o n e n t o f th e lea rn e d p ro f

e s s io n a ls ex em p ti o n b ec au se th ey are req u ir ed to hav e “(1 ) a b a c h e lo r’s d eg ree in an yfield; (2) 1 8 0 0 h o u rs of ap p ren ti ce sh ip o v er a t hr ee- y earper iod ; ( 3) compl et i on of 5 3- hourcr edi tcol l ege c o u rs e s [ i n s p e c if

ic a re a s o f

s tu d y ]; a n d (4 ) a C .P .R . te s t.” O w sle y v . Sa n A n to n io In d e

p . Sc h . D ist. , 187 F. 3d 521, 524- 25 ( 5t h C i r . 1999)

. T he O w s l ey C our tci t ed P aul in a n a lo g izin g th is tr a in in g to th a t o f

a ir lin e p ilo ts
. I

d. T h e P aulm aj or i t ynot es t hateven though t her e i s no 13 e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t a n “ a irline tra n sp o rt p ilo t ce rtific a te w i t h s i ngl e and mul t i engi ne cl as s r at i ngs ” w as r equi r ed forPaul to f ly, h e n o n e th e le s s h a d th is c e rt if ic a te
. See 708 F. 2d. at171 (“ [ H ]a v in g b e e n h ire d a s a p ilo t w ith a listed sk ill lev e l, P a u l is in n o p o sitio n to n o w su g g e st th a t les s w a s ‘r e q u ire d ’ b y[ h is empl oy er ] s i m pl ybeca us e the l aw r equi r ed l es s . ”)

. H er e, w e do not l ook t o s ee w hether C has e and Pi gnat ar o have mor e tr ai ni ng or edu c a t i o n t h a n i s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i r j o b

- we l o o k o n l y at w hethert hei rempl oym enti nvol ves dut i es r equi r i ng know l edge 16 T he P aulC our tr eas oned that , i n or dert o obt ai n a co m m erc ial li ce n se a n d instrum en t r ati n g , a p il o t m u st “ac q u ir e e x tensi ve k no w l edg e of a erody nam i cs, ai rpl ane regu l at i on s, ai rpl ane o perat i on s, i nst rum ent pr oced ures, aeronau t i cal chart s, a n d w e a th e r f

o re c a s tin g .” 7 0 8 F .2 d a t 1 7 2
. A d d iti o n a lly , p ilo ts ar e r equi r ed t o r ece i ve i ns t ruct i on fr om a fl i ghti ns t ruct or , l og a cert ai n num berof hour s of fl i ghtt i m e, and pass w ri tt en and pract i cal t est s. I

d. T he P aulC ou rt d e ter m i ned t hat this i s 13t hati s “cus t om ar i ly ac q ui r ed” bya pr ol onged cour s e of sp e c ializ e d in telle c tu a l in stru c tio n a n d stu d y . T h e sp e c if ic t r ai ni ng and qual i fi cat i ons of an i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ff a r e not r el evantt o t hi s det er m i nat i on. I ns t ead, i n ass es s i ng w hether know l edge i s “cus t om ar i l yac q u i r ed” thr ough i nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on, w e cons i der w hat i s r equi r ed for “the bul k o f t he em p loy ee s” in an asse rt ed p rof essio n . 2 9 C
. F
. R
. § 5 4 1
. 3 0 1 (d); see al so 29 C
. F
. R
. § 5 41
. 30 1(d) ( 20 09 ) (“ T he p hrase
‘ cus t om ar i l yacquir ed bya pr ol onged cour s e of s peci al i zed i nt el l ectual i ns t ruct i on’ r es t r i ct s t he exe m pt i on t o pr ofes s i ons w h e re sp e c ializ e d a c a d e m ic tra in in g is a sta n d a rd p re re q u isite forentr ance i nt o t he pr ofes s i on. . . . T he l earned pr ofes s i onal exem pti on . . . do es no t app l y t o occup at i on s i n w h ich m ost empl oy ees have a cqui r ed thei r s ki l l by exper i ence r athert han by a d v a n c e d s p e c ia liz e d in te lle c tu a l in s tru c tio n .” ). T h u s, in a f

ield w h e re m o st e m p lo y e e s g a in th e ir sk ill s t hr ough i nte l l ectual i ns t ruct i on, an i ndi vi dual empl oy ee w ho gai ned hi s s ki l l s t hr ough exper i ence m ays t i l l be exem ptunder t he FL S A
. T he P a u l C our ts eems t o have f ocus ed more on P a u l’ s in d iv id u a l s itu a tio n th a n th e re g u la tio n s p e rm it. See 708 F
. 2d at17 4 (“[W ]e do no t decide t hat com pan ypil ots as a cl ass per for m exempt pr ofes s i onal w or k. W e fac e her e onlya p i l ot l i ke Paul w it h the hi ghes tfl i ghtr at i ng, cons i der abl e tr ai ni ng, a n d jo b e x p e ri e n c e .” ). W e c a n n o t e n d o r s e th is a p p ro a c h

. See als o D ybach , 942 F. 2d at1565 ( fi ndi ng t hatt he det er m i nat i ve fac t ori s the ed ucat i on t hatt he j ob r equi r es , nott he educ at i on th a t th e e m p lo ye e a c tu a llyh a s); I n r e U

. S. P os t alSer v. , 2000 W L 1100166 at*14:
17[ A ] c lo se a n a ly si s o f th e sp e c ializ e d a c a d e m ic t rai ni ng pr ovi ded t o m ember s of a j ob cl as s i fi cat i on i s a thr es hol d s t ep i n det er m i ni ng w hethert he occ upat i on gener i cal l y m eet s t he p r o f e s s i o n a l e x e mp t i o n t e s t
. Co n s e q u e n t l y , we s har e the vi ew of the diss ent i ng opi ni on i n P aul that itis an alyti ca ll yinco rrect t o “w o rk b ac k w ard s” f

rom the lev el of

an em p loy ee ’s know l edg e and ski l l i n or dert o i nfert hatt he occupa t i on r equi r es t he ki nd of adva nced a c a d e mi c i n s t ru c t i o n c o n t e mpl a t e d b yt he regul at i on s. 18 “ e x ten siv e , fo rm a l, an d sp e c ializ e d tra in in g ” th a t is c o m p a ra b le to th a t u n d e rg o n e b yn u rs e s , a c c o u n ta n ts , a n d a c tu a ri e s . I d. at173. H ow ev er, in l i ghtof ourow n anal y s i s s etfor t h above, t hati s cons i s t entw i t h t he D epart m entof Labor ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the r egul at i ons , w e dec l i ne t o fol l ow t he r eas oni ng of the P aulC o u rt. B as ed on the above anal y s i s , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t. III . W i l l ful n ess P ign ataro an d C h ase ch all en g e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fi ndi ng t hatt he Por tA ut hor i t y ’ s vi ol at i on of the FL SA w as not w i l l ful , and thatt heyw er e thus ent i t l ed t o onl yt w o y ear s of b ac k pay , nott hr ee. 29 U
. S. C
. § 255( a)

. T o es t abl i s h t hatt he19 P o rtA u tho ri ty ’s vio lat io n o f th e F L S A w as w il lfu l, P ign ataro and C has e m u s tpr ove thatt he Por tA ut hor i t yknew i tw as v io latin g th e F L S A o r ac ted in re c k les s d isre g a rd o f w h e th e r it w a s v io la tin g th e F L S A
. McLaughl i n v. R i chland Shoe C o. , 486 U .S . 1 2 8 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 5 (1 9 8 8 ). W h e th e r a v io latio n o f th e F L S A is w illf u l is a q u e s tio n o f f

a c t th a t is re v ie w e d f

o r c le a r e rr o r. See B i anchi Tris on C or

p. v. C hao , 4 0 9 F
. 3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). P ig n a tar o a n d C h a se c o n ten d th a t th e P o r t A u th o rity w i l l ful l yvi ol at ed the FL SA beca us e the Por tA u thor i t ydeni ed t hei rr epea t ed r eques t s t o be pai d t i m e- and- a- hal f forover t i m e, and bec aus e other s w h o h ad s i m i l arj obs ( e. g. , C hi ef Pi l otand C h i e f M e c h a n ic ) w e re p a id tim e -a n d -a -h a lf f o r o v e rt im e . At bes t , t hi s conductw oul d cons t i tut e onl ya negl i gentvi ol at i on of t he FL SA , and, s t andi ng al one, it d o es notr i s e t o t he l evel n e c e ss a ryto sh o w th a t th e P o rt A u th o rityk n e w o r re c k les sly d is re g a rd e d a ri s k th a t it w a s v io la tin g th e F L S A
. Fur t her m or e, an empl oy er has notw i l l ful l yvi ol at ed the FL SA i f it ac t s r eas onabl yi n det er m i ni ng i t s l egal obl i gat i on. McL a u g h lin , 486 U
. S. at135 n. 13. H er e, J ul i a B as i l e, m anage r o f th e c o m p en sati o n an d re ti rem en t divisi o n fo r th e P o rt A ut hor i t y , t es t i fi ed thati n cl as s i fy i ng hel icop terpi l ot s as “pro fes s i onal empl oy ee[ s ] ” s he r el i ed on di s cus s i ons w i t h and “ext ens i ve r es ear ch” byt he l aw depart m entt o d et er m i ne i ndus t r ys t andar d s forcl as s i fy i ng hel i copt erpi l ot s . ( A pp. 153- 56. ) M or eover , t her e w as l egal author i t y for t hi s concl us i on b e c a u s e th e a p p e lla te d e c is io n m o s t d ir e c tly o n p o in t, P aul , h e ld20 t hatai r l i ne pi l ot s ar e exe m ptas “l earned pr o fe ssiona l s . ” The D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e P o rt A u th o rityd id n o t ac t w ith a “ re c k les s d isre g a rd f

o r th e c o n se q u e n c e s, b u t ra th e r, th e f a c ts in d ica te t h a t [ th e P o rt A u th o rity ] m a d e a g o o d f a ith e f f o rt to co m p lyw ith the law

. . . [a n d the P o rtA u tho ri ty ’s] acti o n s w ere r eas onabl e. ” ( I

d. at 15. ) T he Por tA ut hor i t yt hus act ed r eas onabl yi n det er m i ni ng t hathel i copt erpi l o ts w er e exe m pt fr om t he FL SA ’s o ver t i m e pr ovi s i ons . W e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng t hatt he Por tA ut hor i t y ’ s vi ol at i on of the FL SA w as notw i l l ful and that , under29 U
. S. C
. § 2 55( a) , t he P ortA uthori t yi s therefore l i able for on l y t w o y ears of d am ages, in s te a d o f

th re e . IV . P rejud gm en t I n teres t T he fi nal i s s ue con t es t ed byt he Por tA ut hor i t yi s t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s aw ar d of pre j udgm enti nt er es tt o Pi gnat ar o and C h ase . W e re v iew a D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to aw ard p re ju d g m e n t in te re s t f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . T

h a b a u lt v . C h a it , 541 F. 3d 5 1 2 , 5 3 3 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. “[I ] n t he abs ence of an expl ici tcongr es s i onal di r ect i ve, t he aw ar di ng of pr ej udgm ent interest u n d er fed era l law is co m m itted t o the t ri a l c o u rt’s di s cr et i on” a n d s houl d be aw ar ded bas ed on cons i der at i ons of f a ir n e s s . B r ock v

. R i char ds on , 812 F. 2d 121, 126 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( ci t i ng A mb r o mo v a g e v . Un i t e d Mi n e Wo r ke rs o f A m. , 726 F. 2d 972, 981- 82 ( 3d C i r . 1984) )

. T her e i s a pr es um pt i on i n favorof aw ar di ng pr ej udgm ent i nt er es ton a bac k payaw ar d undert he F L S A
. I d. at127. I f pr ej udgm ent i nt er es t i s deni ed, t he D i s t r i ct21 C our tm ust e x p l ai n w hyt he us ual equi t i es i n favorof s uch in te re s t a re n o t a p p lic a b le

. I d. P re ju d g m e n t in ter e st a ttem p ts to compensa t e for t he del ay i n r ece i vi ng t he w ages as w el l as offs et t he r educt i on i n t he val ue of the del ay ed pay m en t s caus ed by in f la tio n . D onovan v. Sover ei gn Sec. , Lt d. , 726 F. 2d 55, 58 ( 2d C i r . 1984) ( fi ndi ng that “i ti s or di nar i l yan abus e of di s cr et i on nott o i ncl ude pr e-

j udgm enti nt er es ti n a bac k- payaw ar d under th e F L S A .” )

. H e re , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d it “e q u itab le to aw ard i nter eston dam ages from t he co m m encem ent of th is ac ti o n thro u g h jud g m en t. ” (A p p . 1 6
. ) T h e P o rt A u th o rityc o n ten d s th a t itis in e q u itab le to penal i ze i tbeca us e ther e w as a tw o- and- a- hal f- y eardel ay betw een w hen the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton February9, 2006, and w hen the m onet aryj udgm entw as ent er ed on A ug ust11 , 20 08
. T he Po rt A uthori t y con t end s t hat i nter est s hou l d n o th a v e a c c ru e d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d

. A s i g n i fi cant p o rt ion o f th is de lay , h o w ev er, w as d u e to th e P o rtA u tho ri ty ’s p r e m a tu r e f

i l i n g o f a N o t i c e o f

A p p e a l o n Ma r c h 3 , 2 0 0 6
. We di s m i s s ed thi s appea l and r emanded t he c as e on February23, 2007 beca us e t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof February9, 2006 w as nota fi nal or der

. O n J ul y 5, 2007, t he D i s t r i ct C our t deni ed the P o rt A u tho ri ty ’s m o ti o n to certi fy that o rde r fo r in terloc u tory appea l

. T he C our tul t i m at el yi s s ued a s econd w r i t t en opi ni on aw ar di ng damages t o Pi gnat ar o and C has e on A ugus t 11, 2008. T her efor e, t he o nl yper i od t hatcoul d r eas onabl ybe exc l uded d u e to u n f

a irn e ss to th e P o rt A u th o rityis f r o m Ju ly5 , 2 0 0 7 to A ugus t11, 2008, butdur i ng t hatti m e thr ee s t atus confe r ence s22 w er e hel d and l et t er s on t he damages i s s ue w er e s ubm i t t ed by couns el

. W e do not t hi nk i t unfai r for t he D i s t r i ct C our t t o have in c lu d e d th is tim e p e rio d in a w a rd in g p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st. T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our t di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng pr ej udgm ent i nt er es t t o Pi gnat ar o and C has e fort he t i m e per i od f ro m F e b ru a ry 9 , 2 0 0 6 to A u g u s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 8
. V . C oncl usi on Forth e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l A F F I R M the j udgm ent o f th e D istric t C o u rt.