Court Opinion

ID: 9383392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 16:00:40.910702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:45.236953
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-1188     Document: 010110835329       Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 30, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  VINCENT SCOTT, individually and on
  behalf of all others similarly situated,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 21-1188
                                                 (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00693-WJM-SKC)
  ANTERO RESOURCES CORP.,                                      (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Plaintiff-Appellant Vincent Scott appealed the district court’s order granting

 summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Antero Resources Corp. on his overtime

 claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court’s summary judgment

 order concluded that Mr. Scott was paid on a “salary basis” under 29 C.F.R.

 § 541.602(a), was therefore a “bona fide executive,” and was not entitled to

 overtime. App., Vol. 18 at 4721-22. We abated this appeal pending the Supreme

 Court’s decision in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al., v. Michael J. Hewitt,

 143 S. Ct. 677 (2023). On February 22, 2023, the Court held that an employee whose

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-1188    Document: 010110835329        Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 2

 pay “is [] a function of how many days he has labored” is not paid on a “salary

 basis.” Id. at 686; see id. at 682, 692. We asked for supplemental briefing in light of

 Helix. In their supplemental briefs, the parties agree the district court’s summary

 judgment order cannot stand under Helix. We therefore REVERSE and VACATE the

 district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Antero Resources and

 REMAND for further proceedings consistent with Helix.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Per Curiam

                                            2