Olson v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | INC,No. 84-3023,PONTIAC-GM,84-3023 |
| Citation | 765 F.2d 1570 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
| Parties | 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 393, 103 Lab.Cas. P 34,690 James OLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPERIOR, Defendant-Appellee. |
Robert F. McKee, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Chris W. Altenberend, IV, John W. Robinson, IV, Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT and CLARK, Circuit Judges and STAFFORD *, District Judge.
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act case involving an automobile salesman who was employed at the Defendant-Appellee's automobile dealership. James Olson, the plaintiff below and appellant herein, filed this action alleging that he was not compensated by the Appellee Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc. [Superior] in accordance with the minimum wage required by 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206. We shall summarize the evidence and the findings of the district court.
Olson was employed as a used car salesman by Superior from April, 1981 until September, 1982. Superior utilized a multiple method of compensating its salesmen. Salesmen were paid daily cash bonuses called SPIFFS for selling designated cars or options. In addition, sales managers would pay cash bonuses to salesmen during their daily sales meetings. 1 Monthly bonuses were paid for volume sales and by sales managers based on their unit's performance. Superior also paid commissions on the sale of automobiles. Salesmen received a percentage of the gross profits generated by each sale they closed.
Superior's salesmen received both weekly and monthly checks. Under Superior's method of compensation, on each Thursday salesmen would receive 70% of the total commissions earned the previous week. This 70% figure was reduced if the salesperson had been advanced money.
At the end of the month, Superior would issue a settlement check to its salesmen. The settlement check consisted of the 30% that was withheld from each weekly check. The 30% was withheld from the weekly checks in order to provide salesmen with a check at the end of the month and to enable Superior to deduct taxes incurred on cash bonuses that were paid to the salesmen during the month. 2
The district court found that Superior's salesmen understood that Superior utilized a monthly pay plan and that most accounting in the automobile industry was done on a monthly basis. Thus, the court concluded that Superior utilized a monthly pay plan even though its salesmen also received weekly checks.
Olson's claim to unpaid minimum wages is restricted to three months. The following chart illustrates the district court's findings.
------------------------------------------
Minimum Wage Excess Over
Month/Year Deficiency Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------
September/1981 0 $415.00
------------------------------------------
October/1981 $ 48.41 0
------------------------------------------
November/1981 $175.15 0
------------------------------------------
August/1982 0 $505.00
------------------------------------------
September/1982 $234.50 0
------------------------------------------
The district court concluded that the amendment to the Handbook allowed " 'the excess ... [to] be carried forward and applied to the next settlement date.' " Olson v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc., No. 83-207-Civ-T-15, slip op. at 3 (M.D.Fla. Dec. 27, 1983) [hereinafter cited as Dist.Ct.Op.].
The court reasoned:
Although the August, 1982 excess could be applied to September of that year, the September, 1981 excess could be applied only to the October, 1981 deficiency. Therefore, plaintiff was not paid the minimum wage for November, 1981, under the regulations in effect at that time.
Id. Thus, the district court's analysis was focused on the issue of whether Superior was subject to liability for the failure to pay minimum wages in November, 1981.
The district court found that the Wage and Hour Field Operations Handbook was amended in March, 1981. The pertinent section of the Handbook provided:
Id. at 3. The district court concluded that Superior's management personnel gave differing interpretations to the amendment of the Handbook. The court stated:
Mr. Douglas Tew was defendant's Assistant Comptroller and the person responsible for implementing the salesmen's pay plan. Mr. Tew testified that if a salesman's commissions during the month were less than the minimum wage for the hours worked by that salesman, the amount below minimum wage could be carried forward to any future month in which the salesman earned more than the minimum wage. Defendant's President and General Manager, Mr. Wooley, testified that he believed that amounts exceeding the monthly minimum wage could be carried forward to cover later months when a salesman's commissions might not meet the minimum wage requirements. In other words, Mr. Tew believed excess commissions would be carried forward while Mr. Wooley thought deficiencies should be carried forward.
Id. at 3-4. Because the district court found that Superior had relied on the Wage and Hour Field Operation Handbook in good faith, it concluded that Superior was not subject to liability for the failure to pay minimum wages in November, 1981 due to the good faith defense found in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 259. Thus, the district court ruled in favor of Superior. We reverse because the district court erred when it concluded: (1) Superior's monthly pay period met the record-keeping requirements of the statute, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 211 and 29 C.F.R. Sec. 516.2 (1984); and (2) Superior was exonerated from liability due to its good faith attempt to conform with the handbook's interpretation of the minimum wage law.
The evidence demonstrates that Superior deducted federal withholding and FICA taxes, medical insurance premiums, expenses for the use of certain automobiles and other amounts from the weekly paychecks. Superior had a policy that required its salesmen to complete weekly time sheets that indicated the number of hours worked each day and the total hours worked during the week. Salesmen were required to submit their time sheets before they could receive a pay check. 3 At trial Superior submitted these time sheets, a payroll summary, and a computer pay schedule that summarized its payments to Olson. These documents set forth the dates upon which Olson received payments, and settlement checks. 4 The payroll summary also illustrated Olson's gross and net earnings for each week and month. Superior did not produce records that summarized the number of hours worked each month or the number of days within each monthly pay period.
Superior's Salesman's Pay Plan and Procedures, provided in pertinent part:
Salesmen will be paid once a week on Thursday. Commissions will be paid on all deals billable and in the business office Tuesday at close of business.
Pay consists of 25% of gross profit except for after sale items qualifying as CIF (cash in fist) bonuses.
70% of earned commissions will be paid weekly. 30% will be carried over till the end of the month to cover receivables and taxes on bonuses.
Record, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Wooley, the president and general manager of Superior, indicated that the Salesman's Pay Plan and Procedures was not intended to be an official policy when it was printed. He testified:
It is to give the salesmen the basic ground rules and basically when he can expect to be paid, what we bonus on and what we don't bonus on and what the rules of the dealership are. That's primarily what it was intended for.
Record Vol. II at 65. Mr. Wooley did not know when the document was prepared or whether it was available to Mr. Olson.
The district court found that a monthly pay plan was utilized. 5 In supporting its conclusion the court stated:
Therefore, although salesmen received a check each week, they were paid pursuant to a monthly pay plan. Testimony revealed that most accounting in the automobile industry is done on a monthly basis. Furthermore, all salesmen understood that defendant used a monthly pay plan. Plaintiff did not take the stand to testify that he had any reason to believe the pay plan was weekly. Absent Plaintiff's testimony, the record equally supports the Defendant's testimony that the pay plan was monthly. The Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof.
Superior claims the following evidence, which the district court examined, supports the court's finding of a monthly pay plan: (1) each month Superior paid its salesmen monthly cash volume sales bonuses; (2) Superior withheld 30% of the sales commissions until the end of each month; (3) Olson did not testify to refute Superior's testimony of a monthly plan; (4) accounting in the automobile industry focuses on monthly figures; (5) sales personnel understood they were compensated pursuant to a monthly plan; and (6) two employees testified that Superior utilized a monthly plan.
Olson responds to Superior's contentions by arguing the record does not reflect the salesmen understood that the pay plan was monthly. The only evidence in the record that addresses this issue is the Salesman's Pay Plan and Procedure and the testimony of Mr. Wooley, Superior's president and general manager. Contrary to appellee's contention, the district court did not find that two employees testified there was a monthly plan.
Olson also contends the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avalos v. United States
...paid at the time work has been done, the minimum wage is due, and wages are ordinarily paid—on pay-day."); Olson v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc. , 765 F.2d 1570, 1579 (11th Cir. 1985), modified , 776 F.2d 265 (11th Cir. 1985) ("The employee must actually receive the minimum wage each pay peri......
-
Intern. Ass'n of Firefighters v. Rome, Ga.
...Department of Labor. Cole v. Farm Fresh Poultry, Inc., 824 F.2d 923, 926 (11th Cir.1987), citing, inter alia, Olson v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 765 F.2d 1570, 1579 (11th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 776 F.2d 265 (11th Cir. 1985); E.E.O.C. v. Home Insurance Co., 672 F.2d 252, 263-65 ......
-
White v. Davis
...require the prompt payment of minimum and overtime wages. (See, e.g., Biggs v. Wilson, supra, 1 F.3d 1537; Olson v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc. (11th Cir.1985) 765 F.2d 1570, 1579, as mod., 776 F.2d 265, 267; United States v. Klinghoffer Bros. Realty Corp. (2d Cir.1960) 285 F.2d 487, 491; se......
-
Leach v. Johnston
...to the employee, even though the result be only approximate. Id. at 687-88, 66 S.Ct. at 1192; see also Olson v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 765 F.2d 1570, 1578 (11th Cir.1985), modified, 776 F.2d 265 (11th Plaintiffs offered their payroll records into evidence in order to satisfy their init......