# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 22-40219 Summary Calendar

____________ Terry Gentry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated , Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19-CV-320

______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Terry Gentry sued Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, L.L.C. (“HR-IT”) individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that HR-IT failed to pay him overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The magistrate judge issued a th orough and detailed report and recommendation urging the district court grant in part and deny in part the

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 24, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40219 Document: 00516831691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2023No. 22-40219

2 Parties’ cross-motions for summary ju dgment. Over objections, the district court adopted the R&R. HR-IT appeals. We AFFIRM

. As described in greater depth in th e magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Gentry worked for HR-IT as a Senior Control Systems Engineer from June 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019. Plaintiff Marc Taylor joined the suit after the parties agreed to conditio nally certify as a collective action. Taylor began his employment on August 28, 2017 as a Lead Electrical Engineer.
The FLSA establishes a 40-hour wo rkweek, requiring employers to pay “time and a half” for any additional time worked beyond the standard workweek. 1 The Secretary of Labor has pr omulgated regulations exempting certain categories of professionals. 2 As our Court recently explained, to fall within one of the exemptions, th ree conditions must be met: First, the employee must meet ce rtain criteria concerning theperformance of executive, administrative, and professional duties. Second, the employee must meet certain minimum income thresholds. Finally, the empl oyee must be paid on a “salary basis.” And although the dut ies criteria and income thresholds vary from exemption to exemption, the regulations apply the same salary-basis requir ement to all four exemptions. 3 The parties agree that only the “s alary-basis” test is at issue. As the R&R ably and thoroughly an alyzes, HR-IT cannot satisfy its burden to demonstrate that Gentry an d Taylor fall into the exemptions. The R&R relies on record evidence that HR-I T failed to demonstrate a good-faith attempt to apply the FLSA, including failing to consult with an attorney

_____________________

1 See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).

2 See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100, 54 1.200, 541.300, 541.601.

3 Hewitt v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc. , 15 F.4th 289, 290–91 (5th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Case: 22-40219 Document: 00516831691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2023No. 22-40219

3 regarding compliance, and recommende d liquidated damages. Finally, the R&R concluded that Gentry and Taylor fa iled to show that the violation was willful and recommended that Gentry sh ould be awarded $ 28,659 and Taylor $66,900.
The district court conducted a de novo review, overruling HR-IT’s objections “[t]o the extent [they] re fer to new evidence and arguments not previously submitted” as “not properly before the court,” and adopted the R&R as its opinion.
We find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the magistrate judg e’s thorough and exhaustive report, adopted by the district court as its op inion. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 22-40219 Document: 00516831691 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/24/2023