Finnell v. Top 1 Pct. Coaching, LLC, No. 2:2019cv00485 - Document 50 (M.D. Fla. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting to the extent set forth in the Order and otherwise denying 33 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/22/2020. (TLP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Finnell v. Top 1 Pct. Coaching, LLC Doc. 50 Case 2:19-cv-00485-JES-NPM Document 50 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID 884 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION TIFFANI FINNELL, Individually, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:19-cv-485-FtM-29NPM TOP 1% COACHING, LLC, Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #33) filed on July 27, 2020. Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. #37) was filed on August 10, 2020, to which Defendant’s Reply (Doc. #39) was filed on August 17, 2020. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant seeks full or partial summary judgment in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that (1) she worked over 40 hours per week; (2) defendant knew or should have known she worked over 40 hours per week; and (3) her claim is timely under the statute of limitations. (Doc. #33, p. 1.) Plaintiff responds that sufficient evidence has been presented to defeat the first two grounds, but Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00485-JES-NPM Document 50 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID 885 she concedes part of the claim is barred as untimely. (Doc. #37, pp. 4-8.) The parties agree that plaintiff must demonstrate that she worked in excess of 40 hours per week and that defendant knew or should have known that she worked in excess of 40 hours per week. (Doc. #37, pp. 5-8; Doc. #33, pp. 7-11.) Defendant asserts that the undisputed material facts establish that neither element of the cause of action has been established, while plaintiff asserts that she has presented sufficient facts to allow a jury to resolve the issues. (Id.) Defendant argues plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that she worked overtime, along with ambiguous performance evaluations that state Plaintiff worked from home “when need be” and “works most mornings from home before she comes in,” are insufficient since they do not demonstrate plaintiff actually worked more than 40 hours per week, or also that the work was compensable. (Doc. #39, pp. 2-4.) Defendant asserts plaintiff’s statement that she worked 55 hours per week is contradicted by her own testimony that her work hours included commute time and taking care of her newborn child. (Id., p. 4.) Moreover, defendant contends that it did not have actual overtime or constructive because, by knowledge plaintiff’s own of plaintiff’s admission, she alleged never communicated this fact to her supervisor or employer, and defendant - 2 - Case 2:19-cv-00485-JES-NPM Document 50 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID 886 accommodated plaintiff’s request to work from home and to have time to care for her child. (Id., pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff responds that the testimonial and documentary evidence affirmatively show she worked overtime. For instance, plaintiff testified she maintained regular office hours from “8— 8:30 a.m. until 5—5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,” and rarely took lunch breaks. (Doc. #37, p. 5.) In addition to her office hours, plaintiff worked from home in the mornings and evenings and would begin her workday at approximately 6:30 a.m. and work until 7:30 p.m. (Id.) Plaintiff also worked from home on the weekends. (Id.) She further argues that her testimony is corroborated by defendant’s records in 2016 and 2017, which reveal plaintiffs’ supervisor confirmed that her work schedule went beyond normal office hours, as well as emails that show the after-hours nature of her work. (Id., pp. 5-6; Doc. #38.) Finally, plaintiff argues that defendant had actual knowledge that she worked overtime because plaintiff communicated with her co-workers, management, and company executives after-hours in accomplishing her work. (Id., p. 7.) Likewise, plaintiff contends that defendants should have known she worked in excess of 40 hours per week because her job as an “event planner” required communication with venues in different time zones, as well as defendant’s coaches who were traveling to these different international events. (Id., pp. 78.) - 3 - Case 2:19-cv-00485-JES-NPM Document 50 Filed 10/22/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID 887 The Court finds that the facts presented by plaintiff are sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to make credibility findings which would establish plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, defendant has not established that the undisputed material facts entitle it to judgment as a matter of law as to the first two issues. Plaintiff concedes that a portion of her claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations, and she agrees not to seek overtime compensation for any week before July 12, 2016. #37, p. 8.) (Doc. Accordingly, defendant’s request for summary judgment precluding unpaid overtime work from January 5, 2015 to July 14, 2016 as time-barred (Doc. #33, p. 11) is granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #33) is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff is precluded for seeking unpaid overtime work from January 5, 2015 to July 14, 2016 as time-barred, and is otherwise DENIED. - 4 - Case 2:19-cv-00485-JES-NPM Document 50 Filed 10/22/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID 888 DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this October, 2020. Copies: Counsel of Record - 5 - 22nd day of
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
