Opinion ID: 41878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deduction of Overtime Pay

Text: Johnson contends that she presented sufficient evidence that Morales’ reason for removing her overtime pay was pretext. Johnson’s evidence of pretext is based on two theories: (1) she did the work and therefore should have been paid, and (2) the BVAMC director had approved the overtime in a general e-mail directing all services to pay overtime to employees to review medical records to confirm insurance. Johnson’s evidence does not address, much less refute, Morales’ pre- 11 Furthermore, any disparities between the candidates’ experience either in general or in the specific areas of ambulatory care are not “so glaring that no reasonable impartial person could have chosen the candidate selected for the promotion in question over the plaintiff.” See Vessels, 408 F.3d at 772; see also Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1090 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the disparity in qualifications must be “so apparent as virtually to jump off the page and slap you in the face”). 14 approval policy. See Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030. It is undisputed that Morales had this pre-approval policy and that Johnson did not get his pre-approval. Thus, there is no showing of pretext in Morales’ withdrawal of overtime pay from Johnson’s account because he required supervisors to obtain his personal approval before working overtime.