Opinion ID: 3165290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Regular Rate

Text: The plaintiffs next challenge the method the district court used to calculate the compensation they were due for unpaid overtime. 40 The FLSA provides that an employer will be liable to its employees for a violation of the overtime pay requirement “in the amount of . . . their unpaid overtime compensation.” 20 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The method of calculating compensatory damages for lost overtime is established for mistaken-FLSA-exemption cases in which “the employer and employee had a mutual understanding that the fixed weekly salary was compensation for all hours worked each workweek and the salary provided compensation at a rate not less than the minimum wage for every hour worked.” Desmond II, 630 F.3d at 354. In such a case, “a court should divide the employees[’] fixed weekly salary by the total hours worked in the particular workweek,” producing the “regular rate” for a given workweek. Id. (citing Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 579-80 (1942)). The employee should then receive overtime compensation for each week in an amount no less than half of the regular rate for that week multiplied by the number of hours worked in excess of 40. See id. at 354-57. In challenging the method the district court employed for calculating damages, the plaintiffs simply maintain that there was a genuine factual dispute regarding whether they agreed to 20 NYLL also provides such liability. See N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 198(1-a); 663(1). 41 receive straight-time pay for all hours worked in a given workweek. We disagree. Importantly, “an understanding [that the fixed weekly salary was compensation for all hours worked] may be ‘based on the implied terms of one’s employment agreement if it is clear from the employee’s actions that he or she understood the payment plan.’” Mayhew v. Wells, 125 F.3d 216, 219 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Monahan v. County of Chesterfield, Va., 95 F.3d 1263, 1281 n.21 (4th Cir. 1996)). For many years without objection, although the plaintiffs did not always work the same number of hours in a day, they received fixed salaries that did not fluctuate depending on the number of hours they worked. On this basis, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that a reasonable jury could only find that the Investigators and GEICO came to understand that the Investigators were receiving straight-time pay for all hours worked in a given workweek. Although the plaintiffs claim that GEICO hired them with the understanding that they would be working only 38.75 hours per week, that does not negate the fact that the record establishes that, over time, they came to understand that any fluctuations that occurred in their hours from week to week would not affect the amount that they would be 42 paid. 21 Accordingly, the district court correctly resolved the issue against the plaintiffs as a matter of law.