United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Kent, United States Magistrate Judge.
Michael Tremore brought this action against defendant Jerry
Bos Vending Service, Inc., claiming that defendant violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 201, et seq., by failing to pay plaintiff
wages and overtime. This matter is now before the Court on
motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff (ECF No. 27)
and defendant (ECF No. 29).
set forth the following facts in his complaint. Defendant
Jerry Bos Vending, Inc. (“Bos Vending”) employed
plaintiff in June 2016. Compl. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2).
“Tremore's primary function was to fill vending
machines and collect money at Bos Vending accounts througout
West Michigan.” Id. Tremore was initially paid
hourly for his employment as a route driver. Id. at
PageID.3. He worked overtime in June 2016 and was paid
overtime. Id. On or about July 13, 2016, Bos Vending
started to pay plaintiff a weekly salary of $800.00.
Id. Plaintiff was the only route driver paid a
salary. Id. After July 13, 2016, plaintiff no longer
received overtime pay when he worked more than 40 hours per
week and was improperly classified as an “exempt”
employee from overtime. Id. Plaintiff was terminated
on November 18, 2017. Id. at PageID.4. The gist of
plaintiff's claim is that defendant treated him as a
salaried employee exempt from overtime pay, when he was
actually just an hourly employee. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for wages, compensatory damages for
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and
Legal Standard for summary judgment
defendants have moved for summary judgment. “The court
shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Rule 56 further provides that a party
asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must
support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995),
the court set forth the parties' burden of proof in a
motion for summary judgment:
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an
absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's
case. Once the moving party has met its burden of production,
the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must
present significant probative evidence in support of the
complaint to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence to support
plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
Copeland, 57 F.3d at 478-79 (citations omitted).
“In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court
views the factual evidence and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” McLean
v. 988011 Ontario Ltd., 224 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir.
FLSA requires employers to pay overtime wages to nonexempt
employees who work in excess of forty hours per week. 29
U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The threshold question for the Court
is whether plaintiff was exempt from the overtime provisions
of the FLSA. For that reason, the Court will address
defendant Bos Vending's motion for summary judgment, in
which it contends that plaintiff was exempt from this
requirement under ...