Summary
finding that defendant properly raised the affirmative defense for the Motor Carrier Act Exemption when the defendant stated in their answer "Defendants affirmatively plead that they were not required to pay overtime to Plaintiff because his position was subject to an exemption to the payment of overtime under the FLSA, including, but not limited to, the motor carrier exemption in Section 13(b) of the FLSA."
Summary of this case from Jordan v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc.Opinion
No. 12-20797
07-16-2013
MAX LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NOYPI, INCORPORATED; PIONEER CONTRACT SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SUSAN SUSUSCO; ED FRITCHER, Defendants-Appellees
Summary Calendar
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CV-1940
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Plaintiff-Appellant Max Lucas appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellants, rejecting all claims for overtime wages. The district court determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact to dispute the conclusion that, at all relevant times, the employment of Lucas and others similarly situated included work as "loaders" of vehicles of sufficient size, engaged in interstate commerce, to come within the exemption of the Motor Carriers Act to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, after the court first determined that Defendants-Appellants had sufficiently raised their exemption defense to avoid Lucas's claim that they had waived it.
Our review of the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the exhaustive opinion of the district court, satisfies us that the court correctly rejected waiver, accurately analyzed the summary judgment record in light of the applicable law, and thus properly dismissed Lucas's action for the reasons expressed in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of October 3, 2012. Consequently, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in all respects.