Terrence Eyles v. Uline, Inc. ( 2010 )

Case: 09-10972 Document: 00511141300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 14, 2010
No. 09-10972 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
TERRENCE EYLES
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
ULINE, INC.
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:08-cv-577-A
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiff–appellant, Terrence Eyles, appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment to the defendant–appellee, Uline, Inc., on his claims under
the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
§ 215(a). Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm. See
Eyles v. Uline, Inc., No. 4:08-cv-577, 2009 WL 2868447 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2009).
Eyles also contends that the district court erred in failing to award him
court costs and liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on his successful
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-10972 Document: 00511141300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2010
No. 09-10972
claim for $71.67 in back pay. But this suit was not necessary to obtain this
recovery. The Department of Labor concluded, after investigation, that Eyles
was entitled to $71.67 in back pay. Uline offered Eyles the full $71.67 through
the Department of Labor, which Eyles refused in favor of filing the present suit.
Therefore, Eyles’s costs in pursuing exactly this recovery in a federal lawsuit
were not reasonably incurred. Eyles also did not demand liquidated damages
on the back pay issue in his amended complaint or at any other point in the
proceedings before the district court. For these reasons, Eyles is not entitled to
costs or liquidated damages.
AFFIRMED
2