Odalys Perez v. Palermo Seafood, Inc. , 302 F. App'x 905 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 12, 2008
No. 08-12806
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-21408 CV-JJO
ODALYS PEREZ,
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PALERMO SEAFOOD, INC.,
a Florida Corporation
d.b.a. Fico Key West Seafood,
JUAN ZIEGGENHIRT,
individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(December 12, 2008
Before DUBINA, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
With the parties’ consent, a magistrate judge conducted a bench trial of this
action claiming minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The district court
found in favor of appellant, Odalys Perez (“Perez”), and entered a judgment for
overtime compensation and statutory damages, retaining jurisdiction to award her
attorney’s fees. Perez appeals, contending that the district court erred in failing to
find, in addition to the overtime violations, that the appellees, Palermo Seafood,
Inc. and Juan Zieggenhirt (“Palermo”), had committed minimum wage violations.
More specifically, Perez asserts that the district court improperly failed to
require Palermo to pay Perez the value of the “tip credit” taken by Palermo for all
hours for which Perez was paid over the course of 46 work weeks. Perez asserts
that she is entitled to the tip credit amount because Palermo failed to meet the
FLSA conditions precedent to allowing an employer to deduct the tip credit from
the cash wages paid to a tipped employee.
An appellate court reviews de novo the district court’s interpretation of a
federal statute, Burlison v. McDonald’s Corp., 455 F.3d 1242, 1245 (11th Cir.
2006), as well as a district court’s interpretation of a state statute. Blasland, Bouck
& Lee, Inc. v. City of N. Miami, 283 F.3d 1286, 1294 (11th Cir. 2002). We
2
likewise review de novo a district court’s conclusions of law. Wexler v. Anderson,
452 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 934 (2007).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we see no clear error in the district court’s findings of
fact or legal error in its application of the law to those findings. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3