Opinion ID: 495848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Trial Court's Calculation of Back Pay Was

Text: Erroneous 11 The trial court found that McKissick's hourly wage was $5.00 per hour, and thus that his overtime wages were $7.50 per hour. The court made this calculation by dividing McKissick's weekly salary of $200 per week into a 40 hour week. The only evidence in the record to support this calculation is McKissick's statement that his salary 'averaged out to about $5 per hour.' No other evidence supports the finding that McKissick's salary was based on a forty hour week. The court below found that McKissick worked 65 hours per week. The proper calculation would be to divide McKissick's weekly salary of $200 into 65 hours. This calculation would obtain a rate lower than the statutory minimum wage; therefore, the statutory minimum wage is the rate which would be the appropriate basis for calculating the proper overtime wage rate. Thus the proper time-and-a-half overtime rate would be $5.03 per hour, rather than the $7.50 per hour which the district court found. Appellants did not contest the District Court's finding of willfulness; therefore, the proper award would be based on a calculation of 25 hours of overtime per week for 262 weeks, or $32,946.50. 12 Appellants also argued that the trial court erred in failing to delete vacation time from its overtime calculations. However, appellants failed to keep records of vacation time taken by employees. Because no evidence to support appellants' argument is in the record, we cannot say that the trial court erred by not subtracting any vacation time from its calculations.