F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 30 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1679 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-01240 -CV -J-16-MCR PAUL BERGQUIST, Pl ainti ff -A ppe lla nt, ve rs us FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVIC ES, INC., a fo re ignc or

por at ion , De fendant-A pp e l l e e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 30, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Be rg quist was employ ed by Fidelity ’s pre dece ssor, Alltel Information Servic es, Inc. 1 Be rg quist argues only

that the af

firmative defe nse wa s not properly raised, but doe s not 2 c ha lle ng e the me ri ts of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s summa ry jud g me nt a

na ly sis . Cf

. G re e nb ri ar, Ltd. v. City of Alaba ster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that issues not a rgued on appea l are deeme d waived, a

nd a passingref

ere nce in a

n appellate brief is insuffic ient to raise a n issue). 2 Pa ul B er gqui st a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of his f orm er e m plo y er , F ide lity

I nf orm at ionS er

vic es , I nc . ( “ Fi de lity ”) , on 1 his c la im f or vio latio n of

the ove rt im e pay

r equir em en ts o f the F ai r L ab or Standards Ac t (“ FL SA ”), 29 U. S. C. §§ 20 1 et seq. O n appeal, B ergquist argues the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by f ind ing that F ide lity

pr ope rl y a sse rt ed , a s an a ff

irm at ive d ef en s e u n d erRu l e 8 (c ) o f t h e F ed er al Ru l es o f C i v i l Pr o ce du re , t h e F LS A’s exem ption of com

puter program

m ers fr om

the overtim e pay

provisio ns. A fter

2 care fu l re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . W e re view the district court’ s analy sis of Fidelity ’ s affir m ative defenses un de r Ru le 8(c ) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e E.E.O.C. v. Whi te & So n En te rs ., 881 F.2d 100 6, 1009 (11th Cir. 1989 ) (r eviewing for a buse of discretion di strict co urt’ s r uli ng o n w ai ve r of

a ff irm at ive de fe nse s un de r Ru le 8( c) ); c f. A m oc o O il Co . v. G om ez , 379 F. 3d 1 266, 127 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( re vie w ing f or abuse of dis cr et iondis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of m oti on t o am en d answ er to ad d c ount er cl ai m unde r Ru le 8( c) ( ci tin g 38 9 O range S t. P ar tne rs v. A rn old , 179 F . 3d 6 56, 664 ( 9th Ci r. 199 9) ( hol din g th at

“ w e have he ld that a

dis tr ic t c ourt’ s [ Ru le 8( c) ] de ci sio ns3

w ithr eg ar d to the tr eatm en t of a ff irm at ive de fe nse s is r ev ie w ed f or an a buse of discretion”))). A s age ne ra l r

ule , the F L SApr ovi de s th at e m plo y ee s are e nti tle d to r ec ei ve ove rt im e pay

a t on e an d on e- ha lf

ti m es the ir

r eg ular rate f

or a ll hour s w orke d in ex ce ss o f fo rty

pe r w ee k. S ee 29 U . S. C. A . § 20 7( a) (1 ). T he F L SAe xe m pts f ro m its overtim e pay

requirem ents “ any

em ploy ee em

ploy ed in a bona fide executive, ad m in is tra ti ve , or p ro fes si on al cap aci ty” who rece iv es pa ym en t o n asal ary ba si s. Se e 29 U . S. C. § 21 3( a) (1 ); se e al so Ave ry v. Ci ty of T al la de ga , 24 F . 3d 1 337, 1340 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) . Mo re ove r, se ct ion213 (a )( 17) of T itl e 29 f

urthe r ex em

pts ce rt ai n sp ec if

ie d e m plo y ee s f ro m the ove rt im e co m

pe nsatio n r equir em en ts, inc lud ing an e m

plo y ee , suc h a s B er gqui st, w ho i s “ a co m put er sy ste m s ana ly st, co m put er pr ogr am m er , sof tw ar e en gin ee r, or

oth er similarl y ski lle d w orke r” w ith cert ai n d efi ne d p rimary

du ti es . Id. at§ 2 13 (a)( 17 ). Pr ior to en te ri ng s um

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of F ide lity ba se d onthe forgoing exem

ption s, the district court addressed Ber gqui st’ s argum ent that Fidelity ’ s failure to assert in its answe r the “ com puter program

m er” exem

ption as an aff irm ative defense re sulted in a w aiver of the def ense: T he Co urt i nit ia lly

not es that r

ule 8( c) , F ed er al Ru le s of Ci vil Pr oc ed ur e, pr ovi de s th at

“ [i ] n pl ea din g aparty

sha ll se t f

orth affir m atively . . . wa iver, and any

other m atter c onsti tutin g an4

avoidance or aff

irm ative defense. ” If

the party fails to raise an af fi rm at ive de fe nse in the ple ad ing s, the party ge ne ra lly w ai ve s it s ri ght to ra ise the iss ue a t tri al . H as san v. U . S. P ost al S er vic e, 842 F. 2d 26 0, 263 (11th Cir. 1988). T he purpose of requiring th at an af fi rm at ive de fe nse be ple d inthe answ er , how ev er , is to p ro vid e n o t i ce t o th e o p p o s i n g p ar ty ‘o f t h e e x i s t en ce o f c er t ai ni s s u es .’ Sch win d [v . EW

& Ass oc ., Inc ., 35 7 F . Sup p. 2 d 6 91 , 69 7 (S .D.N.Y. 2005 )] ( quot ing D oubl ed ay & Co . v. Curt is, 763 F . 2d 4 95, 503 ( 2d Cir. 1985 )). . . . Furtherm ore, “ if a plaintiff r eceives notice of an af fi rm at ive de fe nse by

som e m eans o the r than pl ea din gs, ‘ the de fe ndant’ s f

ai lur e to c om

ply w ithRu le 8( c) doe s no t c au se the pla int if f any pr ej udi ce . ’ ” [Grant v . P re fe rr ed Re se ar ch , I nc . , 885 F . 2d 79 5, 7 97 (11 th Cir . 19 89 )] (qu ot in g [Ha ss an , 84 2 F .2dat 2 63 ]). . . . T he Co urt f

ind s, in the c as e at

bar, that D ef

en dant h as not s o u g h tl ea v e t o amen di t s an s we r. Th e C o u rtal s o fi n d s De fe n d an t ’s co nte nti on that the e xe m

pti on d ef en se s w er e ra ise d by

r ea din g para gr ap h 7 o f the A m en de d C om pla int in co nj unc tio n w ith D ef en dant’ s Answ er

to be te nuou s. N ev er

the le ss, w hil e te nuou s, re vie wof the r ec or d e as ily

de m onstrate s th is c as e re vol ve s aro und w he the r Pl ai nti ff

is ane xe m

pt c om put er pr ogr am m er . T his is ev ide nt in the Mo tio n f

or Mo re D ef

ini te S tate m en t, the A m en de d C om pla int , the A nsw er , D ef

en dant’ s Augus t 15 , 200 5 R ule 11 l ette r an d subs eque nt R

ule 11 M oti on, P la int if

f’ s D ep osi tio n a s w el l a s be ing a focal point of the parties’ Discovery . Plaintiff’ s deposi tion exp lores his occupatio nal duties, the perform ance of his duties and even tou ch es upo n P la int if

f’ s un de rs tandi ng o f the status of an e xe m pt em ploy ee. Moreover, Plaintiff’ s First Set of Interrogatories asked “ [d ] oe s D ef

en dant c ont en d th at

P la int if f w as not e nti tle d to be pa id fo r ove rt im e co m

pe nsatio n f

or any hours w or

ke d ine xc es s of

40 hours du ring a work w eek[, ] ” to which D efendant answe red “ Plaintiff wa s not entit led to be paid ov ertim e com pensation for any

hours worked in excess of 40 hours per we ek because his j ob title, duties an d c om pe nsatio n e xe m

pt P la int if

f fr om the ove rt im e re qui re m en ts o f the [ FL SA ] and r eg ulatio ns p ro m ulg at ed the re unde r. ” A lso not ew orthy

is that D ef

en dant p ro vid ed

P la int if f w ithnot ic e of

the co m put er pr ogr am m er e xe m pti on, and the opp ortun ity to re but it , in5

its Ru le 11 l ette r date d Augus t 15 , 200 5. D ef en dant, in co m

ply ing w ithRu le 11( c) (1 )( A ), F ed er al Ru le s of Ci vil P ro ce dur e, se rv ed

the Ru le 11 l ette r w ithan atta ch ed c opy of it s y et to be f ile d M oti on f

or Ru le 11 s an ct ion s onP la int if f. T his oc curr ed

am onth pr ior

to the filing of Def

endant’ s summ ary

j udgm ent m otion . The R ule 11 letter cl earl y and e xpl ic itl y

se ts f orth D ef en dant’ s in te nti on t o ut ili ze the ex em pti on d ef en se s innot ing that P la int if f “ m et the r equir em en ts o f 29 U . S. C. § 21 3( a) (1 ) an d/o r (2 )( 17) and that he w as not e nti tle d to ove rt im e co m

pe nsatio n un de r the A ct . ” T he Ru le 11 l ette r al so pr ovi de s th at

“ [b ] as ed on the f or eg oin g, y ou are and h av e be enon not ic e that M r. Be rg qui st w as an e xe m pt c om put er pr of es sio na l f or the dur at ionof

his e m plo ym en t at F ide lity . ” T he a tta ch ed Mo tio n f or Ru le 11 S an ct ion s pr ovi de s an e ve n m or e tho ro ugh ex am inatio n of the se e xe m

pti ons. Ba se d up on the f

or eg oin g, the Co ur

t f ind s th e ex em

pti on de fe nse s in

29 U . S. C. § 21 3( a) (1 ) an d 29 U . S. C. § 21 3( a) (1 7) to be properly asserted and before the Court. Alter natively , it is clear that Pl ai nti ff ha s ha d no tic e of

the e xe m pti on d ef en se s, ha s ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to re sp on d t o t he m an d h as th us no t b een pre jud ic ed . H as san, 842 F . 2d at 26 3 ( statin g th at “ [w ] e m ust avoi d th e hy pe rt ec hni ca lity

in ple ad ing r equir em en ts and f oc us, ins te ad , on enforcing the actual purpose of rule [8(c )] .” ). D ist . Ct . O rd er

G ranti ng D ef

en dant’ s M oti on f

or S um m ar y Jud gm en t (N ov. 10, 2005 ) (internal r ecord citations om itted). From our reviewof the rec ord, it is plain that the purpo se of Rule 8(c) --

“ sim ply to guarantee that the oppos ing party has notice of any

addition al issue that m ay be raised at tr ial so that he or she is prepared to properly litigate” -- w as satis fi ed he re . H as san, 842 F . 2d at 26 3 ( ci tin g B lon de r- T ongu e L ab s. , I nc . v. Univ. of Ill. F ound ., 402 U.S . 313, 350 (1971)). “ When a plaintiff has notice that6

ana ff irm at ive de fe nse w ill be r ai se d at tri al , the de fe ndant’ s f ai lur e to c om

ply w ith Ru le 8( c) doe s no t c au se the pla int if f any pr ej udi ce . A nd, w he n th e fa ilure to ra ise an aff irm ative defense does not prej udice the plaintiff, it is not error f or the trial co urt t o h ear e vi de nc e o n t he is su e.” Has sa n, 8 42 F.2dat 2 63 . Bergquist does n ot allege, and the record w ouldnot sup port, that he w as sur pr ise d or in any w ay pr ej udi ce d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n, giv enthat i t clear ly wa s on no tice that the “ com puter program

m er” exem

ption wa s a centra l iss ue of dis put e be tw ee n th e part ie s, ba se d ona ll of the ind ic at or s outli ne d by the dis tr ic t c ourt i n it s or de r. C f. H as san, 842 F . 2d at 26 3- 64 ( fi ndi ng n o a buse of discretion in d istrict court’ s consid eration of af firm ative defense where plaintiff suffere d no prejudice and plain tiff re ceived interrogatories concerning, and w as qu es ti on edex te ns iv el y

du rin g h er d ep os it io n abo ut , th e aff irmativ e d efen se ). On this record, w e discern no abuse of the district court’ s discretion in it s finding that the “ co m put er pr ogr am m er ” ex em

pti on w as pr ope rl y

be fo re it a s an a ff irm at ive defense. Based on the district court’ s well- reasoned order, in which the court ap pli ed c ontro lli ng C ir cu it pr ec ed en t and a ddr es se d e ve ry arg um en t r ai se d by Be rg qui st i n th is a

ppe al , w e af

fi rm the or de r of

sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of F i d e l i ty. AFFIRMED.