Herbert Siegmund v. County of Orange

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs, alleging violations of the Fail-Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), appeal the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Reviewing de novo, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Delia v. City of Rialto, 621 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2010), we affirm.

The district court correctly held that the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) did not create a disputed issue of fact as to whether Defendants adopted a 14-day 86-hour 29 U.S.C. § 207 (k) exemption. Defendants provided uncontroverted evidence that they adopted a 14-day 86-hour work-period and that the work-period was regularly occurring. See Adair v. City of Kirkland, 185 F.3d 1055, 1060-61 (9th Cir.1999). Plaintiffs argue that they raised a disputed issue of fact as to whether Defendants adopted a § 207(k) exemption by showing that the parties agreed to a 40-hour workweek under the MOU. One thing has nothing to do with the other. The § 207(k) exemption and the MOU can coexist because the FLSA provides the statutory floor for overtime compensation and the MOU provides additional contractually agreed upon overtime payments above those required under the…