HEALTH ENTERPRISES OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE.
v.
JAMES BARLOW, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for James Barlow in his Fair Labor Standards Act action against Health Enterprises but reversed the jury's award of liquidated damages, holding that the court rather than a jury must determine whether to award liquidated damages in its discretion.
The court affirmed the underlying judgment that the employer violated the FLSA and Barlow was entitled to relief, but reversed the jury's award of liquidated damages because the issue of whether to award liquidated damages is to be determined by the court in its sound discretion, not by the jury.
[1] An employer violating the Fair Labor Standards Act is liable for unpaid wages and potentially liquidated damages.
[2] The Portal to Portal Act allows employers to seek relief from mandatory liquidated damages by demonstrating good faith and reasonable grounds for believing their actions…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Since an award of liquidated damages is left to the sound discretion of the court, it is to be granted or denied by the court, as opposed to the jury.”
Establishes the core holding that liquidated damages awards are a matter of court discretion, not jury determination, citing federal precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Barlow brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Health Enterprises for wage violations. The trial court submitted the issue …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Grounds For Belief cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.
James Barlow was the plaintiff below in an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Health Enterprises appeals a final judgment rendered for Barlow. Barlow cross appeals, contending the trial court erred in submitting the issue of liquidated damages to the jury. We conclude there was ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury; however, we find that the issue of liquidated damages should not have been submitted to the jury.
The Fair Labor Standards Act provides in part that any employer who violates its provisions shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate, including without limitation employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Portal to Portal Act of 1947 provides relief from the mandatory imposition of liquidated damages as follows:
Liquidated damages
In any action commenced prior to or on or after May 14, 1947 to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or liquidated damages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.], if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in section 216 of this title.
29 U.S.C. § 260.
Since an award of liquidated damages is left to the sound discretion of the court, it is to be granted or denied by the court, as opposed to the jury. McClanahan v. Mathews, 440 F. 2d 320 (6th Cir.1971); Martin v. Detroit Marine Terminals, Inc., 189 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Mich.1960).
Here the jury found that Barlow was entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $4,039.10. We reverse this award and remand the issue of liquidated damages to the trial court for its determination.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
COWART, J., and GREEN, O.L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stop & Shoppe Mart, Inc. v. Zahra Mehdi, 854 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…or omission was not a violation of the Act. If the employer meets that burden, the court, in its discretion, may deny liquidated damages or award an amount smaller than the maximum allowed. See also, Health Enterpris [*788] es of Florida v. Barlow, 512 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). It is the employer’s burden to establish by the preponderance of evidence at trial that it is entitled to the good faith exemption. See, e.g., Dybach v. State of Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 942 F. 2d 1562, 1566 n. 5 (11th Cir.199…
Authorities Cited
- McCLANAHAN v. Mathews, 440 F.2d 320 (6th Cir. 1971)