Quoc Viet v. Victor Le, 951 F.3d 818

Viet invested in and worked for Copier Victor (owned by Le) from mid-2013 to Sept. 2016, buying and shipping used copiers from the U.S. to Vietnam.
Copier Victor treated Viet as an independent contractor (1099s), paid per-copier commissions; Le did not set Viet’s schedule or track hours.
Viet sued under the FLSA claiming he was actually an employee and worked about 60 hours/week from Apr. 2014–Sept. 2016, seeking unpaid overtime and $1,200 in unreimbursed phone expenses.
The district court assumed, for summary-judgment purposes, that Viet was an employee but granted summary judgment to defendants, finding Viet’s testimony about hours conclusory and lacking detail; it also held the FLSA did not entitle him to reimbursement.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Viet’s vague estimates could not create a genuine dispute that he worked >40 hours in any given week and thus he failed to establish FLSA liability or entitlement to expense recovery under the FLSA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Viet produced sufficient evidence to create a jury question that he worked >40 hours/week	Viet said he typically worked ~60 hours/week and pointed to high business volume and emails as corroboration	Viet’s statements were conclusory; no specific daily schedule or records; defendants had no duty to negate overtime absent plaintiff proof	Court: Viet’s vague, inconsistent testimony insufficient; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Viet may recover unreimbursed expenses under the FLSA	Expenses (phone) reduced his overtime pay entitlement, so FLSA reimbursement applies	Viet cannot show he was owed overtime, so expenses did not cut into FLSA-mandated pay	Court: Expense claim fails under FLSA because Viet did not prove unpaid overtime; district court decision affirmed

Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (employee bears initial burden to prove uncompensated work; relaxed evidentiary rule for damages if employer failed to keep records)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: movant entitled where nonmoving party fails to establish an essential element)
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (summary judgment requires that the record as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party)
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive summary judgment)
Moran v. Al Basit LLC, 788 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 2015) (employee testimony describing specific daily schedule can create genuine dispute on overtime)
Keller v. Miri Microsystems, LLC, 781 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2015) (specific evidence of regular work routines can support overtime claims)
O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterps., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (discusses employee burden to prove overtime and application of Anderson)
Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (conclusory statements unadorned with facts insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., 771 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2014) (employee’s generic 60–70 hour estimate without meaningful explanation is insufficient under Rule 56)