Gelber v. Akal Security, Inc., infdco20181011b80 (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20181011b80
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FEDERICO A. MORENO , District Judge . Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 and 58, and in accordance with the reasons stated in Open Court, the Court reconsiders its Order Denying Summary Judgment. Consistent with the parties' indication in Open Court that there are no issues of material fact, the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs that there was no bona fide meal break for the Air Security Officers on the return empty legs
Summary: ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FEDERICO A. MORENO , District Judge . Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 and 58, and in accordance with the reasons stated in Open Court, the Court reconsiders its Order Denying Summary Judgment. Consistent with the parties' indication in Open Court that there are no issues of material fact, the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs that there was no bona fide meal break for the Air Security Officers on the return empty legs o..
More
ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FEDERICO A. MORENO, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 and 58, and in accordance with the reasons stated in Open Court, the Court reconsiders its Order Denying Summary Judgment. Consistent with the parties' indication in Open Court that there are no issues of material fact, the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs that there was no bona fide meal break for the Air Security Officers on the return empty legs of their work flights and that Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for their travel time under Kolhein v. Glynn County, Ga., 915 F.2d 1473 (11th Cir. 1990) and the Code of Federal Regulations § 785.19. Specifically, the Court found the undisputed evidence showed that the Air Security Officers were not "relieved of work for the purpose of eating a regularly scheduled meal."
After hearing testimony on the issue of willfulness and given Plaintiffs waiver of jury trial on this issue, the Court finds the Defendant did not act willfully in violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and acted on the good faith advice of counsel.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
