Davis v. Food Lion - 792 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1986)

Rule:

Under § 7(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (act), 29 U.S.C.S. § 207(a)(1), a plaintiff must show that he was employed by the defendant/employer in order to prove a violation. As defined in 29 U.S.C.S. § 203(g), "employ" includes to suffer or permit to work. The words "suffer" and "permit" as used in § 203(g) are consistently interpreted to mean with the knowledge of the employer. Therefore, in order to prove that he is employed for purposes of the act, it is necessary for a plaintiff to show that his employer had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of his overtime work. This element of constructive or actual knowledge is especially significant when an employee deliberately acts in such a way to prevent his employer from acquiring knowledge of his alleged uncompensated overtime hours.

Facts:

Appellant Jerry S. Davis brought an action against appellee Food Lion, Inc., seeking to recover overtime compensation under §§ 7(a)(1) and 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 207(a)(1), 216(b). At trial, the district court, sitting without a jury, found that the appellant had not proven an element of his case for overtime compensation, namely, that the appellee knew or should have known that he was working overtime hours. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for the appellee. The appellant appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly required him to show the appellee's actual or constructive knowledge of his overtime work as an element of his case, and further, that the district court committed clear error in finding that the appellee had no such knowledge.

Issue:

1. For a complaint filed under §§ 7(a)(1) and 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), was it necessary to show the employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of employee’s overtime work as an element of the case?
2. Did the district court err in finding that the employer had no actual or constructive knowledge of employee’s overtime work?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the district court correctly required the employee to prove that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of his overtime work. Under § 7(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (act), 29 U.S.C.S. § 207(a)(1), a plaintiff must show that he was employed by the defendant/employer in order to prove a violation. As defined in 29 U.S.C.S. § 203(g), "employ" included to suffer or permit to work. The words "suffer" and "permit" as used in § 203(g) were consistently interpreted to mean with the knowledge of the employer. Therefore, in order to prove that he was employed for purposes of the act, it was necessary for the appellant to show that appellee employer had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of appellant’s overtime work. The court also found that the district court weighed the evidence and found that the appellee did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the overtime work. The court held that such a finding was not clearly erroneous.