Danilo Lopez Garcia v. Yachting Promotions, Inc., 662 F. App'x 795

Garcia (plaintiff) worked for Yachting Promotions and claimed he worked over 40 hours weekly but was not paid proper FLSA overtime.
On March 2, 2007, Garcia signed a company memorandum stating he would be paid a weekly base salary that would "compensate [him] for any and all hours worked" and that overtime would be paid at half-time under a fluctuating workweek method.
Garcia testified he was paid a weekly salary ($779.84) rather than an hourly wage, but asserted he did not understand the English memorandum and signed it to keep his job; he also said supervisors gave unclear explanations about pay calculations.
Yachting Promotions argued the fluctuating workweek method applied and thus overtime was payable at one-half the regular rate, not time-and-a-half.
The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding Garcia clearly understood his salary covered fluctuating hours; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employer satisfied the § 778.114 first prong: did employee clearly understand salary covered all hours	Garcia: did not understand the English agreement; signed under duress and received confusing explanations	Yachting Promotions: Garcia signed the memorandum, admitted he was paid a salary, and supervisors told him he was a salaried employee who received overtime	Court: No genuine dispute — Garcia clearly understood salary covered fluctuating hours; fluctuating workweek applies

Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment principles)
Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) (genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (reasonable jury standard on summary judgment)
Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1945) (definition of regular rate)
Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013) (fluctuating workweek is a permissible method, employee bears burden to prove noncompliance)
Clements v. Serco, Inc., 530 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2008) (fluctuating workweek requires clear mutual understanding)
Valerio v. Putnam Assocs., Inc., 173 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 1999) (employee need not understand every calculation detail if understands salary is fixed)
Samson v. Apollo Res., Inc., 242 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2001) (employer's duty to educate employees about the pay method)
Monahan v. County of Chesterfield, Va., 95 F.3d 1263 (4th Cir. 1996) (mutual understanding may be implied from employee's actions)