Melton v. Tippecanoe County
838 F.3d 814
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- James Melton worked for Tippecanoe County Surveyor’s Office (July 2009–Sept. 2010); regular hours 8:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m. with a floating 1-hour lunch.
- Melton asked to take a class and proposed making up 4 hours by shortening lunches/coming in early; supervisor permitted the class but expressly prohibited "making up" time (told it must be unpaid or vacation).
- Melton sometimes came in early and worked through lunch; he was paid according to certified timecards but later alleged the office secretary reduced his submitted hours to 37.5 and told him he could not be paid for more.
- Melton produced a memory-based spreadsheet purporting to show uncompensated pre-shift and lunch work; he did not rely on it at summary judgment to prove lunch hours and did not rebut the County’s attack on its reliability.
- The County moved for summary judgment arguing Melton was paid for hours certified, his recollection/spreadsheet was unreliable, and he failed to show more than 40 hours in a workweek; the district court granted summary judgment and dismissed the state claim without prejudice.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed: it rejected Melton’s spreadsheet/lunch-hour claim as implausible and found any undisputed unpaid pre-8:00 a.m. time (at most ~1 hour 40 minutes/week) insufficient to show workweeks exceeding 40 hours.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melton produced sufficient evidence to show unpaid overtime under the FLSA | Melton says he worked before 8:00 a.m. and through lunch and was not compensated because timecards were reduced to 37.5 hours | County says payroll records show he was paid for certified hours, his spreadsheet/memory is unreliable, and designated evidence supports at most ~39.2 hours/wk | Held for County: Melton failed to prove uncompensated hours exceeding 40 in any workweek |
| Whether Melton’s memory-based spreadsheet can create a genuine dispute of material fact | Melton relied on the spreadsheet (and deposition) to show unpaid hours | County pointed to contemporaneous payroll records that contradicted the spreadsheet and attacked its reliability | Held: Spreadsheet was implausible and contradicted by hard evidence; cannot survive summary judgment |
| Whether plaintiff rebutted County’s showing that any unpaid time was de minimis/non-overtime | Melton claimed he came in early (20 min/day to 45 min/week per spreadsheet) and worked through lunch | County showed that even generous estimates produce less than 40 hours/week and raised inconsistencies | Held: Even credited, pre-8:00 a.m. time was insufficient to meet FLSA’s >40-hour threshold |
| Whether district court erred in relying on County’s reply argument quantifying weekly hours | Melton objected that the County raised the 39.2-hour argument only in reply | County noted Melton had opportunity to present evidence and had been aware of challenges to his recollection | Held: No error—Melton had meaningful opportunity to present evidence and the reply argument was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Peretz v. Sims, 662 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment and ability to affirm on any record-supported ground)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and assessment of genuine disputes)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (employee bears burden to prove unpaid work and may rely on reasonable inference from imperfect records)
- Seshadri v. Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 1997) (testimony may be rejected at summary judgment if internally inconsistent or implausible)
- Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2010) (employee’s unsupported testimony may be flatly refuted by objective evidence)