Judge Charles Siragusa
Codefendant Rizzo hired Tyo to do maintenance and repair work at a hockey rink. By mid-December 2010 Tyo’s hourly pay rate was $22.50. Tyo repeatedly worked more than 40 hours weekly. Refusing time-and-one-half compensation, Rizzo instructed Tyo to implement a "comp time" system tracking excess hours for use as "vacation time." Rizzo did not determine the arrangement’s legality under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In addition to evidence that he was owed $2,260 for 70 hours of overtimeand $2,260 in liquidated damagesTyo was owed $1,524 for unused vacation time. The court granted Tyo partial summary judgment. In addition to offering no admissible evidence supporting their claim that certain overpayments should be averaged to derive an accurate figure for overtime payments to Tyo, the court found defendants’ argument barred by Labor Department regulations at 29 CFR §778.104. Defendants also failed to provide evidence that they acted in good faith. As in Tlacoapa v. Carregal, defendants made no effort to ascertain FLSA requirements. Thus, Tyo was entitled to the full liquidated damages provided for in the FLSA. Nor did defendant provide evidence that time-sheets submitted by Tyo were inaccurate.
