Hobbs v. EVO, 7f4th241

Background

EVO Inc. provided downhole video camera services to oil-and-gas clients; field engineers set up and operated cameras, observed video from a truck, annotated footage, and delivered final video products to clients.
Plaintiffs (Hobbs, Lee, Jones, Arroyo) worked as field engineers, were not licensed engineers, and received on‑the‑job training and supervision from EVO operations managers.
EVO treated field engineers as exempt, paid salaries (plus bonuses), and directed them to record standardized workday hours (12 hours on-site, 8 hours in-shop); time records were often inaccurate.
Plaintiffs sued under the FLSA for unpaid overtime; after a bench trial the district court found EVO liable (non‑exempt), denied liquidated damages (no willfulness), and deferred damages calculation.
For damages the district court applied the fluctuating‑workweek (FWW) .5 multiplier (half‑time) and awarded specific unpaid‑overtime amounts to each plaintiff; it also awarded attorney’s fees but reduced the hourly rate (from $450 to $400) and discounted hours for pursuing unsuccessful theories.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed: it upheld the district court’s findings that field engineers were non‑exempt, that plaintiffs’ evidence sufficed for a reasonable damages inference, application of the FWW, and the fee reductions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exempt status (HCE / administrative)	Plaintiffs argued they were non‑exempt; their duties were production/technical (operate camera, annotate) not administrative.	EVO argued field engineers were highly compensated and performed administrative duties (analysis/quality control) warranting HCE or administrative exemption.	Court held plaintiffs non‑exempt: duties were production‑oriented, lacked regular exercise of independent discretion or managerial/quality‑control responsibilities.
Sufficiency of evidence for unpaid overtime	Plaintiffs relied on time sheets and testimony; employer’s failure to keep accurate records permits reasonable inference under Mt. Clemens.	EVO argued time sheets were unreliable and unrelated to actual hours, so damages estimate was speculative.	Court held plaintiff evidence adequate under Anderson/Mt. Clemens burden‑shifting: district court’s reasonable inference from records and testimony was not clearly erroneous.
Use of Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) method	Plaintiffs argued FWW was inapplicable and they were entitled to time‑and‑a‑half because bonuses varied with hours.	EVO supported FWW; district court found mutual understanding of fixed salary and bonuses not time‑based.	Court affirmed FWW application (.5 multiplier): bonuses tied to job tickets not shown to vary with hours worked, and other FWW elements satisfied.
Attorney’s fees reduction	Plaintiffs argued the rate reduction and hours cuts were improper because counsel obtained core relief.	EVO argued fees should be reduced further for limited recovery and unsuccessful theories.	Court affirmed fee award: district court acted within discretion reducing rate and hours for pursuit of weak positions (class certification, time‑and‑a‑half); proportionality not required.

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (establishing burden‑shifting when employer records are inadequate)
Dacar v. Saybolt, L.P., 914 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2018) (articulating the four‑part FWW criteria)
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) (FLSA exemptions must be construed fairly)
U.S. Dep’t of Lab. v. Five Star Automatic Fire Prot., L.L.C., 987 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2021) (application of Mt. Clemens leniency for damages estimates)
Dewan v. M‑I, L.L.C., 858 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing production tasks from administrative/quality‑control duties)
Gurule v. Land Guardian, Inc., 912 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2018) (attorney‑fee proportionality principles)