From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eyles v. Uline, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 14, 2010
381 F. App'x 384 (5th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-10972.

June 14, 2010.

Robert G. Lee, Lee Braziel, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William Louis Davis, Jackson Lewis, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:08-cv-577-A.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.


The plaintiff-appellant, Terrence Eyles, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant-appellee, Uline, Inc., on his claims under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a). Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm. See Eyles v. Uline, Inc., No. 4:08-cv-577, 2009 WL 2868447 (N.D.Tex. Sept.4, 2009).

Eyles also contends that the district court erred in failing to award him court costs and liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on his successful claim for $71.67 in back pay. But this suit was not necessary to obtain this recovery. The Department of Labor concluded, after investigation, that Eyles was entitled to $71.67 in back pay. Uline offered Eyles the full $71.67 through the Department of Labor, which Eyles refused in favor of filing the present suit. Therefore, Eyles's costs in pursuing exactly this recovery in a federal lawsuit were not reasonably incurred. Eyles also did not demand liquidated damages on the back pay issue in his amended complaint or at any other point in the proceedings before the district court. For these reasons, Eyles is not entitled to costs or liquidated damages.

AFFIRMED


Summaries of

Eyles v. Uline, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 14, 2010
381 F. App'x 384 (5th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Eyles v. Uline, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Terrence EYLES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ULINE, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jun 14, 2010

Citations

381 F. App'x 384 (5th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Cole v. City of Port Arthur

Thus, a plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of "(1) participation in protected activity under the…