Court Opinion

ID: 9365240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 16:01:05.372893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.767183
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11608    Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 01/23/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-11608
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       HECTOR HERNANDEZ,
       on his own behalf and on behalf of
       those similarly situated,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC.,
       a Foreign Profit Corporation,

                                                    Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11608      Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11608

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-02826-JSM-SPF
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Hector Hernandez appeals the district court’s summary
       judgment for Plastipak Packaging, Inc. on his Fair Labor Standards
       Act overtime claim. We affirm.
           FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
              We explained the relevant facts and legal landscape at length
       in an earlier appeal in this case. See Hernandez v. Plastipak Pack-
       aging, Inc. (Hernandez I), 15 F.4th 1321 (11th Cir. 2021). But the
       long and short of it is this: Hernandez worked for Plastipak for a
       fixed base salary of $1,965 every other week, plus performance bo-
       nuses, holiday pay, and nightshift pay. Though Hernandez’s base
       salary didn’t vary, the hours he worked each week did. And when
       he worked more than forty hours in one week, the Fair Labor
       Standards Act entitled him to overtime pay “at a rate not less than
       one and one-half times [his] regular rate” of pay. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
       Because Hernandez’s weekly hours varied, he had no fixed hourly
       rate from which Plastipak could calculate time-and-a-half pay. So
       Plastipak used the “fluctuating workweek method” to calculate his
       overtime pay for any given week.
USCA11 Case: 22-11608       Document: 38-1        Date Filed: 01/23/2023       Page: 3 of 7

       22-11608                 Opinion of the Court                             3

              The fluctuating workweek method accounts for the fact that
       when an employee works variable hours for a fixed weekly salary
       his “regular rate” of prorated hourly pay also varies. See Hernan-
       dez I, 15 F.4th at 1322–33. Because the employee’s fixed salary al-
       ready compensates him at the “regular rate” for the overtime hours
       he works, an employer using the fluctuating workweek method
       “need only pay for overtime hours at a rate of one-half times the
       employee’s regular rate—not at one and one-half times.” Id. at
       1322. Thus, an employer may satisfy the Fair Labor Standards Act
       by (1) dividing weekly salary by the total number of hours
       worked—to calculate the employee’s regular hourly rate for that
       week—then (2) multiplying one-half that rate by the number of
       overtime hours the employee worked that week. This additional
       amount will compensate the extra one-half time pay the Fair Labor
       Standards Act requires. See Hernandez I, 15 F.4th at 1327 (citing
       29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a) (2016) 1).
              Plastipak used a “more generous version of the fixed work-
       week method” to calculate Hernandez’s overtime pay. Id. at 1323.
       To calculate Hernandez’s regular rate, Plastipak divided his weekly
       salary by forty hours—not the total number of hours he worked
       that week. Then, instead of multiplying his overtime hours by only
       one-half the regular rate, it multiplied his overtime hours by the

       1
        A new version of 29 C.F.R. section 778.114 became effective in 2020, but we
       decide this case based on the regulation effective when the case began. See
       Hernandez I, 15 F.4th at 1326 n.3.
USCA11 Case: 22-11608     Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 01/23/2023    Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-11608

       full regular rate. Mathematically, this method would always result
       in an overtime rate more than twice what the standard fluctuating
       workweek method would produce. Plastipak outlined its method
       for calculating overtime pay in a salary policy that Hernandez
       signed when he began working there. The salary policy stated that
       Hernandez’s base salary would be constant—regardless of the
       hours he worked—and explained that Plastipak used the fluctuat-
       ing workweek method to calculate only his overtime payments.
              Nevertheless, Hernandez sued Plastipak on the grounds that
       he was entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act to one and one-
       half time pay for overtime hours, calculated as though he worked
       a fixed forty hours per week. We earlier held that, although Her-
       nandez received additional payment for working nights or holi-
       days, his base salary was still “fixed” within the meaning of federal
       labor law. Id. at 1329. We then remanded for the district court to
       determine whether Plastipak’s pay scheme complied with other as-
       pects of 19 C.F.R. section 778.114, the regulation approving the
       fluctuating workweek method. Id. Especially relevant was
       whether the parties had “a clear mutual understanding” that Her-
       nandez’s fixed salary was “compensation . . . for the hours worked
       each workweek, whatever their number.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.114
       (2016).
              The district court found, on remand, that Plastipak had com-
       plied with the Fair Labor Standards Act because the record showed
       that “the parties had a clear mutual understanding that [Hernan-
       dez’s] bi-weekly salary” was fixed regardless of what hours he
USCA11 Case: 22-11608     Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023    Page: 5 of 7

       22-11608               Opinion of the Court                       5

       worked. It also concluded that Plastipak correctly applied the fluc-
       tuating workweek method because Hernandez’s overtime rate was
       always more than one-half of his fixed rate of pay. The district
       court thus granted Plastipak’s motion for summary judgment.
       Hernandez timely appealed.
                           STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review de novo an order granting summary judgment.
       See Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 782 F.3d 1240, 1245 (11th
       Cir. 2015). A party is entitled to summary judgment when “there
       is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is en-
       titled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
                                 DISCUSSION
              Hernandez raises two arguments on appeal. First, he con-
       tends the district court erred when it found the parties had a clear
       mutual understanding that his base salary was fixed regardless of
       the hours he worked in a given week. The parties, he says, had no
       mutual agreement his salary was fixed because Plastipak’s salary
       policy compensated him for forty hours per week, not a variable
       number of hours per week.
              Hernandez’s first argument fails because Plastipak’s salary
       policy, which Hernandez agreed to and signed, stated plainly that
       Hernandez would “be paid a fixed weekly salary for a fluctuating
       workweek.” The policy then repeated, in bold, that Hernandez
       would “receive a fixed weekly salary as straight time pay for what-
       ever hours [he was] called upon to work in a workweek, whether
USCA11 Case: 22-11608      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 01/23/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                 22-11608

       few or many.” As the district court explained, “[t]he record re-
       flect[ed] that [Hernandez] clearly understood that he would receive
       [his] fixed salary as straight time pay for all the hours he worked in
       any week, whether fewer or greater than [forty] hours.” There is
       no contrary evidence in the record.
               Second, Hernandez argues that Plastipak’s more generous
       fluctuating workweek method violated federal regulations because
       it effectively denied him an overtime pay rate greater than his reg-
       ular rate of pay. The only permissible application of the fluctuating
       workweek method, he says, is to calculate overtime by dividing a
       fixed base salary by the total number of hours worked—not a set
       forty hours, like Plastipak did.
              But the overtime rate in the Fair Labor Standards Act is a
       floor, not a ceiling. The Act and its regulations allow employers to
       pay more than they are required to for overtime hours. Under the
       Act, an employer’s overtime rate must be “not less than” the one
       set by Congress. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). And, under the regula-
       tions, “[w]here all the legal prerequisites for use of the ‘fluctuating
       workweek’ method of overtime payment are present, the Act, in
       requiring that ‘not less than’ the prescribed premium of [fifty] per-
       cent for overtime hours worked be paid, does not prohibit paying
       more.” 29 C.F.R. 778.114(c) (2016). Applying the regulation in
       Hernandez I, we explained that “[n]othing in the plain language of
       the regulation removed Hernandez from [the fluctuating work-
       week’s] scope just because Plastipak paid him more . . . .” 15 F.4th
       at 1328.
USCA11 Case: 22-11608    Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 01/23/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-11608              Opinion of the Court                     7

             That’s what Plastipak did. The method it used to calculate
       the overtime rate always resulted in an overtime rate more than
       twice what the standard fluctuating workweek method would pro-
       duce. Id. at 1323. Paying more than it had to did not violate the
       Act.
             AFFIRMED.