Filed: Sep. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2020
Summary: Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2020 No. 20-10219 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Alondra Portillo, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Kincaid Incorporated; Campuzano Midlothian L.L.C.; Campuzano Cedar Hill L.L.C., Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Summary: Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2020 No. 20-10219 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Alondra Portillo, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Kincaid Incorporated; Campuzano Midlothian L.L.C.; Campuzano Cedar Hill L.L.C., Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the ..
More
Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 14, 2020
No. 20-10219
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Alondra Portillo, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b),
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kincaid Incorporated; Campuzano Midlothian L.L.C.;
Campuzano Cedar Hill L.L.C.,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:18-CV-1759
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alondra Portillo contests the district court’s denial of liquidated
damages and the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to her. Because the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2020
No. 20-10219
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying liquidated damages and
awarding attorney’s fees, we AFFIRM.
I.
Between 2013 and 2018, Alondra Portillo was a hostess and then a
food server for Campuzano’s Restaurants in Dallas, Texas. Portillo brought
claims against Kincaid, Inc., Campuzano Midlothian L.L.C., and Campuzano
Cedar Hill L.L.C. (collectively, Portillo’s “employer”) for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(the “FLSA”). Central to Portillo’s claim was that her pay stubs reflected
that she was paid only $2.13 per hour and that she was never notified that her
employer was using the FLSA’s “tip credit” to raise her pay to the minimum
wage of $7.25 per hour.
A jury found that Portillo’s employer had violated the FLSA by failing
to pay the applicable minimum wage or overtime, and it awarded Portillo
$20,577.27 in damages, but it found that the FLSA violations were not willful.
The district court awarded Portillo $29,880 in attorney’s fees and $4,412.06
in costs. After the jury returned its verdict, Portillo filed a motion for
liquidated damages, which her employer opposed. The district court denied
Portillo’s motion for liquidated damages “for the reasons stated in [the
employer’s opposition to the motion]” and added a footnote specifying that
it “decline[d] to exercise its discretion to award liquidated damages.”
Portillo filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
We review the district court’s denial of liquidated damages and award
of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Singer v. City of Waco, Tx., 324 F.3d
813, 823, 829 (5th Cir. 2003).
2
Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2020
No. 20-10219
An employer who violates the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime
provisions is liable not only for the unpaid compensation but also for “an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). But a
district court may decline to award liquidated damages if it finds that the
employer acted in “good faith” and had “reasonable grounds” to believe its
actions complied with the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 260; Singer, 324 F.3d at 822-
23. An employer faces a “substantial burden” of proving good faith and
reasonableness. Steele v. Leasing Enterprises, Ltd.,
826 F.3d 237, 246 (5th Cir.
2016) (citing Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc.,
899 F.2d 1407, 1415 (5th Cir. 1990)).
“Evaluation of the evidence supporting good faith and reasonableness,
however, is a discretionary determination.”
Id. (citing Cox v. Brookshire
Grocery Co.,
919 F.2d 354, 357 (5th Cir. 1990)).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny
liquidated damages. To begin, although the jury found that Portillo’s
employer had failed to pay Portillo the minimum wage and overtime, it found
that the employer did not willfully violate the FLSA. Establishing willfulness
requires that the plaintiff show that the employer “knew or showed reckless
disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the
statute.” Steele, 826 F.3d at 248 (quoting McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.,
486 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1988)). Portillo argues that an absence of willfulness
can co-exist with an absence of good faith. Maybe so. But the question, in this
case, is not whether the absence of willfulness can co-exist with the absence
of good faith but simply whether Portillo’s employer satisfied its burden of
good faith.
Evidence adduced at trial supports the district court’s good-faith
determination. Specifically, Portillo’s employer’s practice was to have its
managers inform the employees of how their pay is determined. Her
employer also testified that there were posters in different locations such as
the kitchens advising employees of their overtime and minimum wage rights.
3
Case: 20-10219 Document: 00515562705 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/14/2020
No. 20-10219
At least some of these posters were purchased from individuals who visit
restaurants and sell posters to them for the very purpose of helping
restaurants maintain FLSA compliance. Finally, Portillo’s employer had no
reason to suspect that it was out of compliance with the FLSA and noted at
trial that there had been no complaints from its employees.
III.
Additionally, Portillo argues that her award of attorney’s fees should
be increased if liquidated damages are imposed and that the amount of her
award was improperly reduced. Because the district court’s denial of
liquidated damages was not an abuse of discretion, we need not decide
whether the attorney’s fees awarded to Portillo should be increased on that
basis. Portillo’s argument that the amount of attorney’s fees was improperly
reduced is without merit in light of the district court’s thorough explanation
of the award.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
4
