SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(US)(ca6) 50

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Lynwood Pickens – Appellant
Versus
Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions – Respondent



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ LYNWOOD PICKENS, individually and for others │ similarly situated, │ Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, │ > Nos. 24-5407/5459 │ v. │ │ HAMILTON-RYKER IT SOLUTIONS, LLC, │ Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 3:20-cv-00141—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.

Argued: February 5, 2025

Decided and Filed: April 1, 2025

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; KETHLEDGE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC, Houston, Texas, for Lynwood Pickens. Ashlee Cassman Grant, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Houston, Texas, for Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions. ON BRIEF: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC, Houston, Texas, David M. Mathews, JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP, Houston, Texas, Melody L. Fowler-Green, YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Lynwood Pickens. Ashlee Cassman Grant, Jennifer R. DeVlugt, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Houston, Texas, for Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions. Erin M. Mohan, Anne W. King, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

SUTTON, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KETHLEDGE, J., concurred, and MURPHY J., concurred in part. KETHLEDGE, J. (pg. 22), delivered a separate concurring opinion. MURPHY, J. (pp. 23–34), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Nos. 24-5407/5459 Pickens v. Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, LLC Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

SUTTON, Chief Judge. The distinction between “salaried” and “hourly” workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act is easy to state. Salaried employees receive steady, predictable pay regardless of the number of hours they work. Hourly workers receive pay based on the number of hours they work. But sometimes the test is easier to state than to apply. Lynwood Pickens regularly worked more than 50 hours per week at $100 per hour but was guaranteed pay each week for the equivalent of 8 hours, with every subsequent hour paid hourly. His employer classified him as “salaried.” He sued. At summary judgment, the district court determined that Pickens was a salaried worker. We reverse and remand.

I.

Pickens inspects pipes. From 2018 to 2019, he worked for an employment agency called Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, which assigned him to a natural-gas export terminal in Texas. For any week in which Pickens worked, Hamilton-Ryker paid him a “guaranteed weekly salary” of $800, a figure based on eight hours of pay at Pickens’ $100 hourly rate. R.100-6 at 8. If Pickens worked more than eight hours in any given week, which he always did, he received additional compensation at $100 per hour. Over the course of his employment, Pickens worked 28 hours in his slowest week (receiving $2,800), and 83 hours in his busiest (receiving $8,300). On average, he worked for just under 52 hours per week

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top