Court Opinion

ID: 9682183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:06:46.688425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.959854
License: Public Domain

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr., Justice,
concurs and dissents.
I concur with the majority on the retaliatory discharge claim. However, I dissent because I do not agree with the majority’s analysis and disposition of the claim for unpaid overtime compensation.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees are generally entitled to overtime pay for hours they work in excess of forty a week, but this provision does not apply to “a bona fide executive.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). Bona fide executives are not entitled to overtime pay. Id. The jury was asked whether Cruz was a bona fide executive by a question that included the following definition:
An employee who is compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $250 per week is deemed to be a bona fide executive if the employee’s primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof and includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees therein.
See 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(f) (1995) (defining “executive” in similar terms). Cruz did not object to this definition at the charge conference, and he raises no argument on appeal to challenge this definition. Accordingly, I would consider Cruz’s testimony and the other uncontroverted evidence in light of this definition.
Cruz testified that he was paid at a regular rate of $368.80 per week. The record contains no evidence to the contrary. During cross-examination, L & F’s attorney asked Cruz whether he considered himself “in charge of the warehouse.” Cruz answered, “Of the warehouse, yes, sir.” Cruz offered no evidence to dispute L & F’s evidence that the warehouse was a recognized subdivision of L & F’s business. Regarding his direction of two or more workers, Cruz testified as follows:
A: [The part-time coworkers] were hired by Mr. Leo Longoria who was a chain store manager or Esther Robles in the office. They would bring them over to the back or to the warehouse and they would just tell me, “Hey, this is Mr. So and So, he’s going to help you out, just tell him what to do.” And that’s how they were introduced to me.
Q: When they brought one of these college kids to you and said, “He’s going to help you,” what would you do with them?
A: Well, first of all, I would go around and show him and tell him what kind of beer, what brand, to be real careful. with the codes on the boxes to be sure that we always ship the oldest beer first so it won’t get old in the warehouse, and show him the different *287packages like the 7-ounce, the 8-ounce, quarts, bottles, cans and so on and so on.
‡ ‡ ‡ $
For the first two or three days or a week or whatever, I would tell him to help load the trucks with a dolly or a two wheeler or whatever. When they came in the afternoon and there were no trucks, I told them, “Start driving the forklift so you can get used to it and learn how to drive a forklift because I want you to help me out with the trucks.” He would get on the forklift and drive it back and forth just to get used to the forklift and shift it up and down and sideways so he could learn. Then he would start slowly, you know, loading the trucks. Yeah, he would make mistakes. That’s where I told him to do it this way or do it this other way or don’t do it this way. I mean, I tried to teach him what I could, what I knew.
In addition to Cruz’s testimony, the record contains uncontroverted testimony from Jack Gilpin who stated that Cruz had supervisory authority over the janitor.
Accordingly, I would sustain L & F’s first cross-point and hold that Cruz was a bona fide executive as a matter of law. I would render a take-nothing judgment on Cruz’s claim for overtime compensation.