Opinion ID: 723390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Promotions and Recruitment Costs

Text: 18 The government argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that Komoda had no agency relationship with the two promotions companies, I.V. Promotions and Inaoya Promotions. Because the defendants did not use I.V. Promotions within the two-year limitations period, we do not consider whether the court's finding as to that company was correct. As to Inaoya, the district court's finding is supported by testimony and is not clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985) (If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.).
19 An employer may not require employees to make payments for facilities that would reduce their hourly pay below the minimum wage. 29 C.F.R. § 531.3(d). The government argues that the defendants are obliged to reimburse the employees for their recruitment costs, but cites no case, statute or regulation that requires an employer to pay recruiting costs to a third-party recruiter. 2 20 The government also argues that any deductions from the employees' paychecks were an illegal kickback. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.35, 531.40. FLSA regulations prevent an employer from deducting from an employee's paycheck on behalf of a third-party if the deduction directly or indirectly benefits the employer. See 29 C.F.R. § 531.40(a); Brennan v. Veterans Cleaning Serv., Inc., 482 F.2d 1362, 1370 (5th Cir.1973). The regulations seek to prevent employers from pushing their costs of doing business onto their employees. 21 Although this argument may have prevailed in relation to the enterprises' earlier collection practices, there was little evidence that the defendants directly or indirectly made or benefited from deductions during the limitations period. During the relevant time, the employees received full paychecks, then deposited all or a portion into a separate bank account. The court made an explicit finding that the employees repaid their notes voluntarily and that these collection methods were not coercive. This finding was supported by evidence at trial. 22 Based on the court's explicit findings, we hold that the defendants were not responsible for paying for the employees' recruiting costs.