Orlando Estrada v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 16-17159 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 20, 2020.
Download PDF
Case: 16-17159 Date Filed: 05/30/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-17159 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-23388-KMM ORLANDO ESTRADA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FTS USA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (May 30, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-17159 Date Filed: 05/30/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Orlando Estrada appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer, FTS USA, on his unpaid overtime claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error. An employee bringing an FLSA claim for unpaid overtime wages initially bears “the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated.” Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299, 1315 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686–87, 66 S. Ct. 1187, 1192 (1946)). When an employer has failed to keep records or the records cannot be trusted, this burden of proving work without proper compensation is “relaxed.” See id. Under such circumstances, an employee satisfies his burden “if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated” and he “produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 328 U.S. at 687–88, 66 S. Ct. at 1192). Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Estrada and applying the relaxed burden for proving work performed without proper compensation, Estrada’s claim fails as a matter of law. Estrada offers only vague and contradictory assertions regarding the work for which he was allegedly not paid, and those assertions cannot support “just and reasonable inference[s]” about the 2 Case: 16-17159 Date Filed: 05/30/2017 Page: 3 of 3 nature or extent of that work. See id. Estrada has not created a genuine issue of material fact about whether he performed work for which he was not paid. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
