Court Opinion

ID: 9475806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:38:51.306814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:56.872931
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the opinion of the panel majority in all respects except as to the award of prejudgment interest, from which I dissent.
Congress has explicitly stated that amounts owing under the ADEA are deemed to be amounts owing under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b); O’Donnell v. Georgia Osteopathic Hospital, 748 F.2d 1543, 1552 (11th Cir.1984). It is settled that an award of both prejudgment interest and liquidated damages represents a double recovery under the FLSA. See Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 897, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1944); Barcel-lona v. Tiffany English Pub, Inc., 597 F.2d 464, 469 (5th Cir.1979); Foremost Dairies v. Ivey, 204 F.2d 186, 190 (5th Cir.1953). I can fathom no reason for treating the successful ADEA plaintiff differently from his FLSA counterpart with respect to liquidated damages and prejudgment interest.