Opinion ID: 2623203
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The period from July 1992 to December 1993

Text: The remaining question, therefore, is whether Providence met its burden as to the period between July 1992 and December 1993. Although the superior court also applied Providence's average of 2.71 overtime hours a week to Hutka's work during this period, that average was computed based on Hutka's time records for 1994 and 1995 and thus is not a precise calculation for Hutka's work during 1992 and 1993. But Providence argues that it negated the reasonableness of Hutka's estimate of hours worked during this period. The superior court found that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence presented by Hutka at trial. As Providence points out, Hutka conceded at trial that she failed to recalculate her overtime when she converted her claim from an AWHA to an FLSA claim. [26] The superior court also found that Hutka included annual leave and sick leave in her estimates of average hours worked. [27] Hutka claimed that she had computed her average of 11.16 overtime hours by calculating the average overtime worked each week during 1993 when she kept a personal calendar or diary in which she tracked her actual hours for that year. But during cross-examination, Providence compared the diary with Hutka's reports of overtime to the Department of Labor and pointed out at least six specific vacation and sick days that Hutka had included in her computation of overtime hours during 1993. [28] Providence also demonstrated discrepancies between Hutka's diary and the reported calculations, particularly during six weeks in 1993 in which Hutka claimed up to nine hours per week more in overtime than she had recorded in her diary. [29] In Barios, we determined that the fact that the employer did not keep records means only that the burden-shifting standard of Mt. Clemens applies. But the employer may still meet its burden of proof through other forms of evidence. [30] Witness credibility determinations are left to the trial court and there is no reason the judge cannot find the testimony of other witnesses to be more credible in the absence of employer records. [31] Given the contradictions in Hutka's testimony and evidence, the trial court could find that the defense witness, Kathy Lum, was a more credible witness than Hutka. And the court had discretion to find that the defense effectively refuted Hutka's account of the nature and extent of her employment. Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Providence negated the reasonableness of Hutka's assertion that she worked 11.16 hours of overtime a week during this period. Once Providence met its burden, the trial court did not err in favoring Providence's estimate of 2.71 hours per week. We conclude that the trial court's analysis of the evidence was consistent with that required by Barios and therefore affirm the trial court's computation of overtime.