Hector Hernandez v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc.
22-11608
11th Cir.Jan 23, 2023Background:
- Hernandez worked for Plastipak on a fixed biweekly base salary ($1,965) plus bonuses and shift/holiday pay; his weekly hours varied.
- Under the FLSA, overtime pay is 1.5× the employee’s regular rate; fluctuating workweek method applies when salary is fixed but hours vary.
- Plastipak used a more generous variant: it divided Hernandez’s weekly salary by 40 (not actual hours) and paid overtime at the full regular rate rather than just the 1/2 premium.
- Hernandez signed a written salary policy stating he would receive a fixed weekly salary as straight time pay for whatever hours he worked (a ‘‘fluctuating workweek’’ arrangement).
- On prior appeal the Eleventh Circuit remanded to determine whether there was a clear mutual understanding (29 C.F.R. § 778.114) that the fixed salary compensated all hours; the district court found such mutual understanding and granted summary judgment for Plastipak.
- On this appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the record showed mutual understanding and that paying more than the regulatory premium does not violate the FLSA.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a clear mutual understanding that Hernandez’s salary was fixed for all hours under the fluctuating workweek | Hernandez: no mutual agreement because policy tied pay to forty hours, not a variable-hours salary | Plastipak: written salary policy (signed) explicitly states fixed weekly salary for fluctuating workweek | Court: record shows clear mutual understanding; no contrary evidence; district court correct |
| Whether Plastipak’s more generous calculation violated the FLSA/regulation by not using total hours to compute the regular rate | Hernandez: employer must divide salary by total hours each week; Plastipak’s method is improper | Plastipak: FLSA and regulations set a floor; employer may pay more than required premium | Court: FLSA overtime is a floor; paying more (as Plastipak did) does not violate the Act or regulation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 15 F.4th 1321 (11th Cir. 2021) (prior Eleventh Circuit decision explaining fluctuating workweek principles and remanding on mutual-understanding issue)
- Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 782 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)