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 thorough 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: 07/24/2023
No. 22-40219 

2 

Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Over objections, the district 

court adopted the R&R. HR-IT appeals. We AFFIRM. 

As described in greater depth in the 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 conditionally certify as a collective action. Taylor began his employment on August 28, 2017 as a Lead Electrical Engineer. 

The FLSA establishes a 40-hour workweek, requiring employers to 

pay “time and a half” for any additional time worked beyond the standard 

workweek.1

 The Secretary of Labor has promulgated regulations exempting 

certain categories of professionals.2

 As our Court recently explained, to fall 

within one of the exemptions, three conditions must be met: 

First, the employee must meet certain criteria concerning the 

performance of executive, administrative, and professional duties. Second, the employee must meet certain minimum income thresholds. Finally, the employee must be paid on a “salary basis.” And although the duties criteria and income thresholds vary from exemption to exemption, the regulations apply 

the same salary-basis requirement to all four exemptions.3

The parties agree that only the “salary-basis” test is at issue. 

As the R&R ably and thoroughly analyzes, HR-IT cannot satisfy its 

burden to demonstrate that Gentry and Taylor fall into the exemptions. The 

R&R relies on record evidence that HR-IT 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, 541.200, 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: 07/24/2023
No. 22-40219 

3 

regarding compliance, and recommended liquidated damages. Finally, the 

R&R concluded that Gentry and Taylor failed to show that the violation was 

willful and recommended that Gentry should 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] refer 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 judge’s thorough and exhaustive report, 

adopted by the district court as its opinion. The judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED. 

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