Gentry v. Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40219 Document: 00516831691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-40219 July 24, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Terry Gentry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, L.L.C.,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CV-320
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Terry Gentry sued Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, L.L.C. (“HR-IT”)
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that HR-IT
failed to pay him overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The magistrate judge issued a thorough and detailed report and
recommendation urging the district court grant in part and deny in part the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40219 Document: 00516831691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2023
No. 22-40219
Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Over objections, the district
court adopted the R&R. HR-IT appeals. We AFFIRM.
As described in greater depth in the magistrate judge’s report and rec-
ommendation, Gentry worked for HR-IT as a Senior Control Systems Engi-
neer from June 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019. Plaintiff Marc Taylor joined the
suit after the parties agreed to conditionally certify as a collective action. Tay-
lor began his employment on August 28, 2017 as a Lead Electrical Engineer.
The FLSA establishes a 40-hour workweek, requiring employers to
pay “time and a half” for any additional time worked beyond the standard
workweek.1 The Secretary of Labor has promulgated regulations exempting
certain categories of professionals.2 As our Court recently explained, to fall
within one of the exemptions, three conditions must be met:
First, the employee must meet certain criteria concerning the
performance of executive, administrative, and professional du-
ties. Second, the employee must meet certain minimum in-
come thresholds. Finally, the employee must be paid on a “sal-
ary basis.” And although the duties criteria and income thresh-
olds vary from exemption to exemption, the regulations apply
the same salary-basis requirement to all four exemptions.3
The parties agree that only the “salary-basis” test is at issue.
As the R&R ably and thoroughly analyzes, HR-IT cannot satisfy its
burden to demonstrate that Gentry and Taylor fall into the exemptions. The
R&R relies on record evidence that HR-IT failed to demonstrate a good-faith
attempt to apply the FLSA, including failing to consult with an attorney
_____________________
1
See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
2
See 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100, 541.200, 541.300, 541.601.
3
Hewitt v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc., 15 F.4th 289, 290–91 (5th Cir. 2021) (en
banc).
2
Case: 22-40219 Document: 00516831691 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/24/2023
No. 22-40219
regarding compliance, and recommended liquidated damages. Finally, the
R&R concluded that Gentry and Taylor failed to show that the violation was
willful and recommended that Gentry should be awarded $28,659 and Taylor
$66,900.
The district court conducted a de novo review, overruling HR-IT’s
objections “[t]o the extent [they] refer to new evidence and arguments not
previously submitted” as “not properly before the court,” and adopted the
R&R as its opinion.
We find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the
reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough and exhaustive report,
adopted by the district court as its opinion. The judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.
3