Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—M.D. Fla.: Employee survives employer’s summary judgment motion regarding FLSA violations and breach of contract, (Apr 18, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

A reasonable jury could find that the employer failed to maintain proper records of when its employees worked overtime at home or worked through the automatically deducted meal breaks.

An employer was summary judgment with respect to an employee’s claims for violation of the FLSA and breach of contract, ruled a federal district court in Florida. The court determined that the employee’s testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer maintained proper and accurate records of overtime, and it had constructive knowledge that she was working outside of her scheduled hours. As to her breach of contract claim, the court found material issues of fact existed regarding the employee’s claim that she was owed $50 per day over her hourly rate for certain days she worked. However, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was granted with respect to the claim for violation of the Florida Whistleblower Act (Bardram v. Oak Hill Health and Rehabilitation, LLC, No. 8:22-CV-00873-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2025)).

Staffing coordinator. The employee was employed as the staffing coordinator for a rehabilitation center. As staffing coordinator, she created schedules of shift assignments for the employer’s nursing staff. She also managed the employer’s use of staffing agencies to ensure that it was fully staffed. Additionally, she served as the employer’s central supply coordinator, responsible for ordering needed supplies, and distributing those supplies to the nursing stations.

In her role as staffing coordinator, the employee was issued a phone to receive calls or texts from employees about their schedules. The employee testified that she kept the staffing phone with her 24 hours a day, seven days a week. According to the employee, she was offered $50 per day to keep the staffing phone, but she never received the payment.

The employee testified that she worked about an hour before each shift to determine whether the employer was understaffed or overstaffed. She additionally testified that she routinely worked three hours per day from home in addition to her normal shifts but did not keep track of those hours.

Meal break deduction. Thirty minutes per workday were automatically deducted from the employee’s pay for a meal break. According to the employee, she did not report every time that she worked through her meal break.

Overtime claim. The employee was terminated on March 16, 2022. In her complaint, she alleged that the employer violated the FLSA by not paying her overtime compensation for the hours she worked from home and for the times she worked through her lunch breaks. She also alleged that the employer breached an agreement to pay her a wage of $16.32 per hour. Finally, she alleged the employer terminated her employment in retaliation for her objection to its alleged FLSA violation as well as an objection to understaffing on March 12, 2022, allegedly in violation of state and federal regulations. The employer moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Accurate records. As an initial matter, the employer argued that the record contained no evidence that the employee worked more than 40 hours during a week for which she was not properly compensated. Here, the court determined that the employee’s deposition testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer maintained proper and accurate records of overtime. According to the employee, the employer did not provide a form for her to use to report overtime worked at home. As for the time she spent working through meal breaks, the employee testified “there was no way of documenting” when she worked through a meal break. Further, the employer’s payroll records did not differentiate orally reported hours from normal clock-in and clock-outs.

Thus, a reasonable jury could find that the employer failed to maintain proper records of when its employees worked overtime at home or worked through the automatically deducted meal breaks.

Working time. In her deposition testimony, the employee described her uncompensated work, and estimated she worked three hours every day outside of her normal work hours, including weekends. As for her uncompensated meal breaks, she testified she only took her meal breaks “on occasion.” Additionally, she identified witnesses who could corroborate her testimony that she worked outside of business hours. Moreover, the employee presented evidence that she was discouraged from accurately recording overtime work. Thus, the employee’s evidence established genuine issues of material fact as to whether she worked unpaid overtime hours, and the amount and extent of those hours. Accordingly, the employer was denied summary judgment as to whether the employee performed uncompensated work.

Employer knowledge of overtime work. Additionally, the court determined that the evidence established an issue of fact as to whether the employer had constructive knowledge of the employee’s overtime work. Here, the employee testified that she told the employer’s HR director about the calls she was getting at home and that she should be compensated for that overtime. She also testified that three other company officials knew she worked outside of her scheduled shift because they would communicate with her about staffing outside of normal business hours. Thus, the employee’s testimony showed that the employer had constructive knowledge that she was working outside of her scheduled hours. Accordingly, the employer was denied summary judgment as to this element of the employee’s FLSA claim.

Breach of contract. To establish breach of contract under Florida law, a plaintiff must prove “(1) the existence of a contract; (2) a material breach of that contract; and (3) damages resulting from the breach.”

Although the record contains no documentary evidence of an employment contract under which the employer agreed to pay the employee $16.32 per hour of work, the parties stipulated that on January 8, 2022, the employee’s pay rate increased from $16.00 per hour to $16.32 per hour. The employee further asserted that the employer agreed to pay her overtime compensation in the form of a $50 per day flat rate above her hourly rate. Because the employer disputed that offer, material issues of fact existed as to the employee’s claim that she was owed $50 per day over her hourly rate for certain days she worked. Accordingly, the employer was not entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.

Whistleblower claim. On the other hand, the employer was granted its motion for summary judgment as to the employee’s whistleblower claim. Applying the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas, the court noted that the employee presented no evidence that she ever objected to or refused to participate in the employer’s plan to cover a shortage of CNAs. Further, the employer failed to establish that her report of understaffing on March 12, 2022, was a statutorily protected expression. Accordingly, the employer was entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s whistleblower claim as it related to understaffing.

The case is No. 8:22-CV-00873-MSS-AEP.

Judge: Scriven, M.

Attorneys: Michael Dustin Sechrest (Warner, Sechrest & Butts) for Jennifer Bardram. Alexis M. Connell (TLC Management) for Oak Hill Health and Rehabilitation, LLC.

Companies: Oak Hill Health and Rehabilitation, LLC

Cases: WageHour Overtime WorkingTime Whistleblowers Retaliation ContractClaims StateLawClaims FloridaNews