Source: https://flsaovertimelaw.com/2010/01/15/d-n-j-defendants-not-entitled-to-use-fluctuating-workweek-fww-because-they-did-not-pay-plaintiffs-a-fixed-amount-as-straight-time-pay/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 13:51:16+00:00

Document:
Adeva v. Intertek USA, Inc.
This case was before the Court on the parties respective Motions for Summary Judgment on a variety of issues. Significantly, the Defendants purported to pay Plaintiffs under a Fluctuating Workweek methodology, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §778.114. Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court rejected this claim, holding that since Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs a “fixed amount as straight time pay” each week, the pay methodology at issue violated the FLSA.
Reasoning that the pay method at issue did not comply with the FLSA, the Court discussed the general principles of the FLSA and the specific pre-requisites for application of the FWW.
1) Plaintiffs’ hours fluctuate from week to week, 2) Plaintiffs receive a fixed salary that does not vary with the number of hours worked during each workweek (excluding overtime premiums), 3) the fixed amount received by Plaintiffs provides compensation every week at a regular rate that is at least equal to the minimum wage, and 4) that Defendants and Plaintiffs share a ‘clear mutual understanding’ that Defendants will pay that fixed salary regardless of the number of hours worked. 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a); O’Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279, 288 (1st Cir.2003); Flood v. New Hanover, 125 F.3d 249, 252 (4th Cir.1997).
The essential question before the Court is whether Defendants have met the prerequisites for applying the FWW method. The Court is not convinced that Defendants pay Plaintiffs “a fixed salary that does not vary with the number of hours worked during each workweek (excluding overtime premiums).” 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a). The record demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ compensation for non-overtime hours varied, depending upon earned offshore pay, holiday pay or day-off pay. The Court is convinced that due to such payments, Plaintiffs cannot receive the fixed salary required to apply the FWW. See, e.g., O’Brien, 350 F.3d at 288 (holding that a ten-dollar night-shift increase precluded application of the FWW); Ayers v. SGS Control Services, Inc., 2007 WL 646326 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (holding “any Plaintiff who received sea pay or day-off pay did not have fixed weekly straight time pay, in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a).”); Dooley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 369 F.Supp.2d 81, 86 (D.Mass.2005) (holding that payment of a premium rate for weekend work precludes application of the FWW).
Although not discussed here, the Court granted Defendants’ Cross Motion, in part, holding that Defendants’ FLSA violation(s) were not willful. To read more about the case click here.
By Andrew Frisch in Fluctuating Workweek on January 15, 2010 .
Would the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter act have any impact upon the FLSA in regards to the statute of limitations?

References: v. 
 §778
 § 778
 v. 
 v. 
 § 778
 v. 
 § 778
 v.