FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPT 07 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1136 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D. C. Dock et No. 0 4- 22 64 0- CV-AJ EUGENIO G ARCIA, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us PORT ROYALE TRADING COMPANY, INC., LOUISE LYNCH, OASIS OUTSOURCING, INC., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (S ep te m be r 7, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd D U BI N A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Under the FWW, which is ty

pically used for employ ees whose hours fluc tuate fr om week 1 to week, the workwe ek is still capped at 40 hour s, and any work in excess of 40 hours is considere d overtime for

which an e mploy ee must be pa id. Employ ee s are compensa ted at a f ix ed sala ry per we e k r e g ard le ss o f t

he numbe r of ho ur s wor

ke d (w he the r ab ov e or

be low 40 ho ur s) , a

nd a t on e -h a lf (o r 5 0% ) t

he re g ula r r a te , in ste a d o f on e -a

nd -o ne -h a lf

tim e s ( or 15 0% ) f or e a c h h our w or

ke d in e xce ss o f 4 0 h ours . 2 T his is anappe al f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t in f av or of the e m plo y er , P ort R oy al e T ra din g C om pa ny , I nc . , a nd o the rs ( “ the de fe ndants ”) in E uge nio G ar ci a’ s c la im br ough t un de r the F ai r L ab or S ta ndard s A ct ( “ FL SA ”) , 29 U
. S. C. § 20 1 et seq . E sse nti al ly , G ar ci a co nte nds tha t the de fe ndants vio la te d th e FL SAby f ai lin g to pa y

him ove rt im e w ag es pur suant t o the actual re quirem ents, and that he w as entitled to tim e-and-one-half for ea ch ho urwork edin ex ces s o f 40 ho ur s, ra th er t ha n o ne -h al f-t im e. The F LS A gener ally

requires em

ploy ers to com

pensate their em

ploy ees at
one -a nd- one -h al f tim es the e m plo y ee ’ s us ua l ho ur ly

r at e, or “ re gul ar r at e, ” fo r each ho urwork edov er 4 0 h ou rs . D av is v

. F rie ndl y , 200 3 W L 214 8868 2, *1 ( 11th Ci r. 200 3) ( ci tin g 29 U
. S. C. § 20 7( a) (1 ))
. B ut, the F L SA ’ s im ple m en tin g
re gul at ion s pe rm it em

plo y er s to use a lte rn at ive c om pe nsa tio n sc he m es , li ke the fl uc tua tin g w orkw ee k m ethod (“ FWW ”) , to sui t vari ous em plo ym en t ne ed s. 29 1 C. F. R. § 77 8. 114.3

In granting su m

m ary j udgm ent in favor of the defe ndants, the district court
correc tly found that Garcia

failed to show that he did not h ave a c lear understandi ng of the FW W m ethod of com

pensation
. Moreover, the rec ord de m onstra te s th at

G ar ci a w as pr ope rl y

pa id o ve rt im e unde r the F W W m ethod of
co m pe nsa tio n. D es pit e his c la im s of not und er standi ng h owhe w as pa id d ue to his a lle ge d in ab ili ty

to unde rs ta nd the E ngl ish langua ge , e ith er w ri tte n or

spo ke n, he did un derstand how m uch m oney

he w as paid each w eek. He also knew that his hou rs f

luc tua te d e ac h w ee k a nd tha t on ce he e xe cu te d th e fi xe d sa la ry f or fluctuating ho urs agreem ent, the m anner in which he w as com pensated had ch an ge d. F or

a lm ost thr ee y ears a ft er

the e xe cu tio n of

the a gr ee m en t, G ar ci a be ga n r ec ei vin g aba se sa la ry r eg ar dle ss o f the num

be r of hou rs he w orke d a nd
rece ived additi onal half-tim e for e ach hour over 40. A ccordingly , for the abovestated reasons, w e conclude that the district court correctly granted summ ary j udgm en t i n f

av or of the de fe nda nts
. AFFIRMED.