Boyd v. Foti ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31263
Summary Calendar
BENJAMIN BOYD; JOHN BAZILE, III, Individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated;
JUAN P. SCOTT; CYNTHIA HOWARD; DAVID A. JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
EDWARD BAINES,
Movant-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., Individually and in his capacity
as Criminal Sheriff of Orleans Parish; THE ORLEANS PARISH
CRIMINAL SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 94-CV-204-B
--------------------
August 7, 2001
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying them relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
They argue that (1) they were wrongfully denied overtime
compensation because the district court erroneously determined
that certain of them fell within the “law enforcement” exception
to the FLSA and (2) the trial court applied the wrong statute of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-31263
-2-
limitations based on its erroneous finding that the Sheriff did
not “willfully” violate the FLSA.
Plaintiffs mistakenly construe the district court’s decision
denying them overtime compensation as the product of their
classification as law enforcement personnel. The district court
ultimately based its decision that no overtime was owed on the
fact that neither their testimony nor the exhibits established
that the Department of Labor’s (DOL) audit results, which did not
identify them as employees to whom overtime pay was owed, were
erroneous. Because the district court’s holding was not based on
the employees’ classification as law enforcement personnel but
rather on its factual finding in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. Rule 52(c) that the DOL’s wage calculations were correct, we
review it for clear error and find none. See Southern Travel
Club, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 125, 128 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Plaintiffs argue that the Sheriff’s FLSA violations should
be construed as “willful,” thus entitling them to a three-year
limitations period, because the violations were of a continuous
nature. Plaintiffs similarly have not shown that the district
court clearly erred on this issue. See Reich v. Tiller
Helicopter Servs., 8 F.3d 1018, 1036 (5th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiffs also argue that the FLSA’s three-year limitations
period does not apply to cases where an employee has been
discharged in retaliation for filing a complaint under the FLSA,
apparently inferring that the Sheriff wrongfully terminated some
unnamed employees. This argument was rejected by the district
No. 00-31263
-3-
court because the plaintiffs had put forth no material evidence
to substantiate allegations of retaliation. We reject it for the
same reason.
The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.