ORDER

BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.

The parties presented evidence at a one-day bench trial on April 7, 2015. Post-trial briefs were submitted the next day.1

I. BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiff worked as the manager for Defendants' hotel from January until December 2013, which is the relevant time period for this case.

2. During 2013, Plaintiff's compensation package included a salary of $1,500 a month and free on-site housing.2

3. Plaintiff either quit or was fired on December 13, 2013, but returned to work on December 17, 2013.

4. Plaintiff quit working for Defendant in January 2014, and worked at a different hotel from January to September 2014.

5. Plaintiff was rehired by Defendant in January 2015.

6. Despite Plaintiff's title as "manager," she is not an exempt employee under the FLSA.

7. Since this litigation began, Defendants paid Plaintiff $7,000 in previously unpaid overtime compensation, and the parties agree that $7,000 should be set off from Plaintiff's damages.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Overtime Compensation

1. Plaintiff's Compensation Package

Since Plaintiff's compensation included free lodging, "the reasonable cost or the fair value of the lodging (per week) must be added to the cash wages before the regular rate is determined."3 Defendant testified that the lodging was valued at $18,000 a year, and Plaintiff did not dispute this amount; so the lodging has a value of $1,500 a month. With lodging and salary, Plaintiff regular rate is $3,000 a month, which is $750 a week.

2. Plaintiff's Hours

To determine the hourly rate, the $750 must be divided by the number of hours Plaintiff worked, but there were no set hours. Defendant testified that because Plaintiff was the hotel manager she might work "unlimited" hours, but he expected her to work 40 to 60 hours when they reached their compensation agreement. Other evidence at trial also supported the fact that Plaintiff hours varied weekly, based on demand. Accordingly, the "fluctuating work week method" will be used to determine Plaintiff's regular rate.4

"[W]hen an employee is, by agreement, paid a fixed weekly wage for hours that fluctuate from week to week, the proper way to calculate the employee's regular rate of pay is to divide the weekly wage by the number of hours actually worked in a particular week."5 Under this method, Plaintiff is entitled to overtime of one-half the regular rate.6

Here, determining the number of weekly hours is difficult because Defendants did not keep records of Plaintiff's hours.7 Complicating the issue more are the inconsistencies within each side's testimony.

Plaintiff testified that she worked 65 hours of overtime per week from January to June 2013 and 32 hours of overtime per week from June to December 2013. However, in a December 12, 2013 interview statement to the Department of Labor, Plaintiff indicated that she worked an average of 32 hours of overtime per week.8 In a December 21, 2013 letter to the Department of Labor, Plaintiff asserted that she worked 0-10 hours of overtime a week on average.9 Plaintiff's estimations also assume that she worked the same amount every week throughout the year and do not account for time off. However, it is undisputed that Plaintiff was off, at a minimum, for several days in November and December.

Defendants provided a much lower estimation of hours. In a response to interrogatories, Defendants indicated that between January and March 2013, Plaintiff worked 10-15 hours of overtime per week,10 and from April to December she worked 0-10 hours of overtime a week.11 However, Defendant testified that Plaintiff worked 23 hours of overtime the first week in January and 12 hours of overtime the last two weeks in January. The other monthly overtime totals were between 0 and 82 hours. Defendants' numbers average to around 7 hours of overtime per week.

There are a few of problems with Defendants' overtime estimations. First, Defendants did not keep up with Plaintiff's hours during the year, so the calculations were made in response to litigation. Second, the hours are based on a reverse calculation of when other people were working, and assumes there was never more than one person working the front desk. Third, there are dates missing in the calculations and there was no explanation for this at trial. Finally, Defendants' calculations were for two-week intervals, but the FLSA requires that each workweek stand alone and "does not permit averaging of hours over 2 or more weeks."12

3. The Court's Calculations

According to Defendants' numbers, Plaintiff worked 325.5 hours of overtime. Plaintiff claims she worked 2,357 hours of overtime. That is a difference of 2,031.5 hours, and neither estimate is reasonable.

Because there was no reliable evidence, I used the average of the estimates. For example, on week one, Defendants estimated 16 hours of overtime and Plaintiff said 65 hours — the average of the two is 40.5 hours. Since Plaintiff's salary is $750, her regular rate for that week was $9.32,13 and she is entitled to $188.73 of overtime wages.14 On dates where Defendant had no information, I assumed that Plaintiff worked 8 hours. Based on these calculations for each of the 52 weeks in 2013 (see attached spreadsheet), Plaintiff is entitled to overtime compensation of $7,438.03.

B. Liquidated Damages

Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages., and, at trial, Defendants conceded that Plaintiff was entitled to liquidated damages if she prevailed. Since Plaintiff was awarded $7,438.03 in unpaid overtime wages, she is entitled to $7,438.03 in liquidated damages.15

C. Retaliation Claim

Plaintiff conceded the retaliation claim, because there was "no testimony or evidence . . . that Plaintiff actually lost wages for the four days in which she was off work."16 Defendants contend that it was at best a swearing match and there was no proof that Plaintiff lost wages or was kicked out of the apartment.

D. Punitive Damages

As I announced at the end of the trial on April 8, 2015, the evidence does not support a claim for punitive damages (even assuming they are permitted under the FLSA).17

E. Personal Liability

As I ruled at trial, the individual defendants are personally liable for damages.18

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Plaintiff is entitled $7,438.03 for back pay overtime wages and $7,438.03 for liquidated damages, for a total of $14,876.06. Since Defendants already have paid Plaintiff $7,000, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of $7,876.06 from Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.