Court Opinion

ID: 9410904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 00:00:50.690684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.800011
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40219         Document: 00516831691             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/24/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
                                      ____________                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                       No. 22-40219                        July 24, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                              Clerk

   Terry Gentry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, L.L.C.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:19-CV-320
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Terry Gentry sued Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, L.L.C. (“HR-IT”)
   individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that HR-IT
   failed to pay him overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
   The magistrate judge issued a thorough and detailed report and
   recommendation urging the district court grant in part and deny in part the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40219           Document: 00516831691              Page: 2      Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                            No. 22-40219

   Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Over objections, the district
   court adopted the R&R. HR-IT appeals. We AFFIRM.
            As described in greater depth in the magistrate judge’s report and rec-
   ommendation, Gentry worked for HR-IT as a Senior Control Systems Engi-
   neer from June 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019. Plaintiff Marc Taylor joined the
   suit after the parties agreed to conditionally certify as a collective action. Tay-
   lor began his employment on August 28, 2017 as a Lead Electrical Engineer.
            The FLSA establishes a 40-hour workweek, requiring employers to
   pay “time and a half” for any additional time worked beyond the standard
   workweek.1 The Secretary of Labor has promulgated regulations exempting
   certain categories of professionals.2 As our Court recently explained, to fall
   within one of the exemptions, three conditions must be met:
            First, the employee must meet certain criteria concerning the
            performance of executive, administrative, and professional du-
            ties. Second, the employee must meet certain minimum in-
            come thresholds. Finally, the employee must be paid on a “sal-
            ary basis.” And although the duties criteria and income thresh-
            olds vary from exemption to exemption, the regulations apply
            the same salary-basis requirement to all four exemptions.3

   The parties agree that only the “salary-basis” test is at issue.
            As the R&R ably and thoroughly analyzes, HR-IT cannot satisfy its
   burden to demonstrate that Gentry and Taylor fall into the exemptions. The
   R&R relies on record evidence that HR-IT failed to demonstrate a good-faith
   attempt to apply the FLSA, including failing to consult with an attorney
            _____________________
            1
                See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
            2
                See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100, 541.200, 541.300, 541.601.
            3
                Hewitt v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc., 15 F.4th 289, 290–91 (5th Cir. 2021) (en
   banc).

                                                   2
Case: 22-40219      Document: 00516831691          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                    No. 22-40219

   regarding compliance, and recommended liquidated damages. Finally, the
   R&R concluded that Gentry and Taylor failed to show that the violation was
   willful and recommended that Gentry should be awarded $28,659 and Taylor
   $66,900.
          The district court conducted a de novo review, overruling HR-IT’s
   objections “[t]o the extent [they] refer to new evidence and arguments not
   previously submitted” as “not properly before the court,” and adopted the
   R&R as its opinion.
          We find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the
   reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough and exhaustive report,
   adopted by the district court as its opinion. The judgment of the district court
   is AFFIRMED.

                                          3