Opinion ID: 3004142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Wage Claims

Text: Finally, we turn to Turner’s wage claims. Turner asserts that from late 2003 through 2004, he worked with Lake on several Sundays and that Lake often directed him to alter his time records to make him ineligible for 24 No. 07-2449 overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207.7 Turner believes he has been denied a “substantial amount” of money because of Lake’s actions. He also suggests he has information confirming the amount of overtime he was denied, but this “information” has never been placed in the record. The Saloon challenged Turner’s claims by introducing its payroll records, which show that Lake and Turner worked together on only four Sundays during the time period at issue. On two of those Sundays, Turner’s hours for the week were extremely low, suggesting that any time-shaving on Sunday was unnecessary. For the other two Sundays, Turner actually received overtime pay. The district court granted summary judgment dis- missing the wage claims, concluding that Turner’s arguments were “unsupported ipse dixit [that] is flatly refuted by the hard evidence proffered by Saloon.” The court’s decision was manifestly correct; this claim is flimsy in the extreme. Turner has the burden of proving that he performed overtime work for which he was not properly compensated, and if he contends that his employer’s records are not accurate—which he does—then he must “produce[] sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery 7 Because the protections of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act are coextensive with those of the FLSA, Condo v. Sysco Corp., 1 F.3d 599, 601 n.3 (7th Cir. 1993), our analysis of Turner’s FLSA claim applies equally to his Illinois Wage Payment Act claim. No. 07-2449 25 Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946), superseded on other grounds by statute, Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. §§ 251262. Although Turner disputes the accuracy of The Saloon’s records, his mere assertions are insufficient to create a jury issue.8 See Jackson v. E.J. Brach Corp., 176 F.3d 971, 985 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (opponent of summary judgment must do more than raise “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”). Turner’s wage claims were properly dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is A FFIRMED to the extent that it dismissed Turner’s ADA claims, his overtime claims, and his Title VII retaliation claim. Regarding Turner’s sexual-harassment claim under Title VII, the judgment is R EVERSED and the case is R EMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 8 The one piece of record evidence Turner points to—a document cryptically saying “Turner 38.88 hours—cut first”—is inconclusive at best. 2-8-10