853 F.3d 1344
11th Cir.2017Background
- Freixa sold cruises for Prestige from Dec 7, 2013 to Dec 19, 2014, earning a fixed salary plus commissions totaling over $70,000 with 63% from commissions.
- Commissions were computed monthly and paid the following month; monthly computation subtracted prior-month cancellations from bookings.
- District court used 29 C.F.R. § 778.120 to apply a “reasonable and equitable method” because commissions were not allocated weekly, dividing total remuneration across all hours worked.
- Court found Freixa’s average hourly rate exceeded $10.88 by treating annual remuneration as across all weeks, granting summary judgment for Prestige.
- The Act requires week-to-week calculation of regular rate; commissions are included in regular rate; regulation § 778.120 limits cross-month allocation; court remanded.
- Record showed Freixa averaged 60 hours per week but the number of hours in individual weeks remained in genuine dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May commissions be allocated across weeks outside the computation period? | Freixa argues no cross-month allocation allowed. | Prestige argues § 778.120 permits some cross-period allocation. | Allocation across months not allowed; within-month allocation required; remand. |
| Must regular rate be calculated week-by-week with commissions included? | Freixa contends weekly calculation is required. | Prestige contends regulatory method justifies the district court's approach. | District court misapplied the regulation; no summary judgment; fact dispute remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klinedinst v. Swift Invs., Inc., 260 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001) (regular rate per hour computed for the particular workweek)
- Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colom., 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014) (regulation interpretation and de novo review of agency rules)
- United States v. Hoffman-Vaile, 568 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2009) (statute/regulation interpretation de novo)
- Craig v. Floyd Cty., 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and inferences for non-movant)