Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—W.D. Tenn.: Employee granted partial summary judgment where evidence showed he was not paid overtime, (Sep 17, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

The court found a trial is still necessary to determine the amount of compensation owed to a restaurant employee.

An employee was granted a motion for partial summary judgment where undisputed facts showed that he was owed, but not paid compensation for overtime work, and that the employer willfully violated the FLSA. The court ruled that a trial is still necessary to determine the exact amount of compensation owed due to a factual dispute between the parties (Tenorio v. Osaka 88, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02547-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 14, 2026)).

Employee compensation. The employee was hired at Osaka in 2013 or 2014 as a dishwasher and worked his way up through the kitchen hierarchy. By 2022, he was working as a chef. He alleges—and Osaka admitted in its answer to his complaint—the restaurant paid him a salary of $1,300 every 15 days plus a varying amount of tips. But in its motions, Osaka argued that he was paid a varying amount based on hours worked, at $11 per regular hour and $16 or $16.50 per overtime hour. One payroll receipt produced by the employee “supports his contentions as to his pay,” according to the ruling in the case.

The parties agreed the employee did not use a time clock, although he alleged he was not required to do so, while the employer argued he refused to do so from 2022 through 2025. According to the employee, he worked about 50 hours per week from Tuesday through Saturday, and while the restaurant disputed the details of his schedule, “weekly schedules” provided by the employer indicated he worked most of those days through lunch and dinner.

Pay calculation. To calculate pay, a restaurant assistant manager wrote down when employees arrived, and a restaurant manager in charge of payroll used those notes and the schedules to calculate the employee’s time worked. The manager created timesheets showing hours worked during a two-week pay period which were signed by the employee, though the employee argued he never reviewed them since he was paid in cash. The timesheets indicated that the employee often worked overtime, according to the ruling, though the employee disputes the exact hours reflected on the sheets.

In November 2013, the employer was previously sued by a former restaurant cook for FLSA overtime violations with similar allegations, and the parties reached a settlement that paid the cook all of his claimed damages.

Here, the employee argued there are no genuine disputes of material fact because the employer admitted to paying a salary of $1,300 every two weeks plus tips, and evidence including testimony and the employer’s documents showed that he worked overtime. Additionally, he argued the employer failed to comply with record-keeping requirements, creating an inference as to his estimated damages, and that the employer’s FLSA violations were willful, allowing for the statute of limitations to be extended to three years. The employee also argued he is entitled to mandatory liquidated damages.

For its part, the employer argued the employee cannot meet his legal burden to show he worked uncompensated overtime and that even if he can show a “reasonable inference” he did so, the employer’s evidence negates that inference.

Salary or wage. The employee argued it is undisputed that he was paid $1,300 every two weeks plus tips since the employer admitted that in its answer. The employer argued it subsequently produced evidence showing it paid all required overtime. But the court found that parties generally cannot bring admitted facts back into dispute, finding no genuine dispute exists as to the pay.

Overtime hours. The employee argued that the employer’s weekly schedules and timesheets showed that the fact that he frequently worked overtime is not in dispute.

For its part, the employer argued he failed to meet that burden, in arguing his claim for overtime was for “staying late,” that he signed timesheets and received cash payments for regular and overtime hours, and that he prevented the restaurant from understanding his hours by refusing to use a time clock. The employer also argued that he signed the timesheets when paid in cash and never complained the amounts were incorrect.

The court found that employer’s own evidence showed the employee worked overtime, that no evidence was offered to show that he was required to use a time clock while evidence showed that the employer used a different time-keeping method, and that its schedules and timesheets show that it knew he worked overtime. The employee’s signature on timesheets also doesn’t absolve an employer of FLSA liability, the court found.

Damages. Employees have a duty to keep records of wages, hours, and other employment practices, and when those records are not kept, an employee may produce evidence “sufficient to create a just and reasonable inference as to his damages,” according to the ruling. The burden then shifts to the employer to negate that inference.

The employer argued that its weekly schedules, timesheets, and a spreadsheet constitute proper records, but the court found it produced no record of the amount actually paid to the employee—and a manager testified it had no such records—and that no genuine dispute exists it failed to comply with FLSA record-keeping requirements.

The employee argued his estimated unpaid overtime is no less than $13,494 based on routinely working from 50 to 54.5 hours per week, and his testimony and the employer’s schedules support that inference, according to the ruling. The employer argued the timesheets specifically identify regular and overtime hours, but the employee disputed that these show the precise number of hours worked. But the employer cannot rely on its own limited record-keeping to defeat the employee’s claim, the court found, finding it had not met its burden and that the amount of damages must be determined at trial.

Willful violation and liquidated damages. The employee next argued that the employer willfully violated the FLSA, since it was previously sued for an “identical violation” and subsequently did not train its employees on the law’s requirements. The employer admitted that it did not train or educate employees on the FLSA, and that its managers understood the law’s requirements, but it argued that it did not violate the law because the employee did not previously complain and because, it alleges, its documents constitute adequate record-keeping.

The court found that the employer knew that paying the employee $1,300 plus tips every two weeks violated the FLSA and yet still did so for years, ruling no genuine dispute exists “as to the material facts that show Osaka’s willful conduct to violate the FLSA.”

Liquidated damages. The FLSA entitles employees to liquidated damages for unpaid overtime, but a court may limit or deny them if an employer demonstrates its actions were in good faith and it had reasonable grounds for believing it was not violating the FLSA. Here, the employee argued the employer’s failure to educate its employees “and its awareness and apparent disregard of the FLSA requirements show a lack of good faith and reasonable basis for its violations.” The employer argued that the employee’s avoidance of the time clock and his being paid in cash made compliance difficult and that he presented no evidence it intentionally avoided its duties. The employer also claimed to have paid all entitled overtime.

But the court found liquidated damages to be mandatory, citing the same reasoning for finding willful violation of the FLSA.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-02547-SHL-atc.

Judge: Lipman, S.

Attorneys: Bryce William Ashby (Donati Law Firm, LLP) for Mario Tenorio. Adam M. Nahmias (Law Offices of Libby & Nahmias) for Osaka 88, LLC.

Companies: Osaka 88, LLC

Cases: WageHour Overtime RemediesDamages Procedure TennesseeNews