Opinion ID: 4578731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Individual Coverage under the FLSA

Text: The first question is whether the FLSA applies here at all. Coverage under the FLSA can be established by showing either (1) enterprise coverage or (2) individual coverage. Enterprise coverage exists where an employer’s “annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). Individual coverage, on the other hand, examines whether the company “has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or . . . has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i). Gilbo and Smith do not claim that enterprise coverage applies. Unfortunately for Brass Pole on appeal, it did not challenge or contest individual coverage before the district court. Generally, “the failure to present an issue to the district court forfeits the right to have the argument addressed on appeal.” Vance v. Wade, 546 F.3d 774, 781 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Armstrong v. City of Melvindale, 432 F.3d 695, 699–700 (6th Cir. 2006)). We follow this rule for two main reasons: “the rule eases appellate review by having the district court first consider the issue [and it] . . . ensures fairness to litigants by preventing surprise issues from appearing on appeal.” Cone v. Tessler, 800 F. App’x 405, 409 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir 2008)). -4- Case No. 20-3287, Agment, LLC v. Gilbo Both reasons apply in full force here. Brass Pole’s extensive argument over whether Gilbo and Smith utilized music downloaded from the internet is a fact-intensive question that the district court was better-suited to handle, rather than considering it here for the first time. Furthermore, Brass Pole offers no reason why it failed to make its individual-coverage argument before the district court. Brass Pole’s only attempted justification comes in its reply, where it states “that any deficiencies in the summary judgment response [are] very uncharacteristic” of the attorneys who handled it. However, we must remember that “an oversight on the part of . . . counsel is not alone a justification for departing from our usual procedure of non-review of issues not raised below.” Cone, 800 F. App’x at 410 (quoting United States v. Means, 133 F.3d 444, 448 (6th Cir. 1998)). By not contesting that Gilbo and Smith were individually covered by the FLSA, Brass Pole forfeited this argument. Therefore, we uphold the district court’s ruling that Gilbo and Smith were individually covered by the FLSA.