Opinion ID: 43815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fair Labor Standards Act Claim

Text: Posada argues that the district court erred by finding that he produced insufficient evidence to support his claim for overtime compensation. He cites the following as evidence sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment on this claim: (1) the copies of the time cards did not reflect the overtime hours that Posada and Tobchi testified were recorded on the back; and (2) Posada and Tobchi testified that Posada worked overtime hours for which he was sometimes paid cash at a rate of straight pay, and for which he was sometimes not paid. We review “de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying the same legal standards as the district court.” Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A court shall grant summary judgment when the evidence before it shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment, upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to his case on which he bears the burden of proof at trial. 3 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “In making this determination, the court must view all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the judge’s role is not to weigh the evidence or to assess credibility, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251,106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “Sufficient” evidence is that which is more than “merely colorable” and is “significantly probative.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250-51, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. The FSLA requires that employers compensate covered employees for hours worked in excess of forty per week at one and one half times their regular pay rate. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). In granting the motion for summary judgment, the district court relied upon Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the employee bears the initial burden to show the amount of hours worked, which is most easily met by securing the production of the employer’s records. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. at 687-88. If the employer has not kept adequate time records, the employee must either offer convincing substitutes or otherwise prove that he has 4 in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated, such as by producing sufficient evidence of the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. Id. In the context of summary judgment, the district court’s finding that the records were accurate, as a matter of law, is contradicted by the record. Posada and Tobchi’s testimony constituted evidence sufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether Posada actually worked overtime hours for which he was not properly compensated. The requirement of Rule 56 to produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact was therefore met. Accordingly, we vacate and remand as to the FLSA claim.