FLSA Overtime Claims: Employer Record-Keeping Obligations and Employee Burden for Evidence

Introduction

In Sydney Marie Keefe v. Britt’s Bow Wow Boutique, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed fundamental questions under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. Plaintiff Sydney Keefe, a former on-site manager at BBWB’s Miami kennel and transportation operation, sued her employer and its owner, Merri Colvard, for willful failure to pay overtime at one-and-a-half times the regular rate. After a jury verdict in Keefe’s favor, the district court entered a $104,000 judgment—equally split between unpaid overtime and liquidated damages—and awarded her costs and attorney’s fees. BBWB and Colvard appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial procedures, and the awards of costs and fees. The Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam opinion, issued May 23, 2025, unanimously affirmed all aspects of the district court’s rulings.

Summary of the Judgment

The jury found BBWB and Colvard willfully violated the FLSA by refusing to pay plaintiff overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2).
After a verdict of $52,000 in unpaid overtime, the district court doubled the award to $104,000 in view of willfulness, as permitted by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and § 260.
The court denied defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, for new trial, and for remittitur, concluding the record contained ample non-speculative proof of overtime hours, employer knowledge, and damages.
The court awarded plaintiff $12,575.63 in taxable costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and $78,337.50 in attorney’s fees under the FLSA’s fee-shifting provision, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in full, holding (1) the evidence satisfied the burden-shifting framework of Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.; (2) the employee may introduce an employer’s own records even if she failed to disclose her own evidence of hours; (3) illustrative trial aids were properly admitted; and (4) the costs and fee awards were reasonable.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court relied principally on the Supreme Court’s burden-shifting framework in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), which holds:

If an employer keeps proper records, an employee may discharge her burden by producing them.
If the records are inaccurate or inadequate, the employee need only show she performed unpaid work and provide a “just and reasonable inference” of its extent.
The burden then shifts to the employer to prove the precise amount of work or to negate the inference.

Subsequent Eleventh Circuit decisions reaffirmed that an employee may meet her prima facie burden with testimony estimating hours worked over 40 per week—even “ranges” or averages—so long as inaccuracies are due to the employer’s recordkeeping. See Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cnty., 495 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007); Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013).

For liquidated damages, the court cited 29 U.S.C. § 260, which creates a presumption of an equal award unless the employer shows “good faith” and reasonable grounds for thinking its conduct complied with the FLSA. A jury finding of willfulness under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) forecloses a good-faith defense. See Alvarez Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2008).

Procedurally, the opinion explains that:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) does not require a plaintiff to compute damages based solely on her own records when the employer’s records are in the employer’s possession.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) bars a party from using undisclosed evidence in its possession, but does not bar use of an opponent’s records that the opponent produced in discovery.
Illustrative aids—now governed by Fed. R. Evid. 107—may be used at closing to explain computations derived from admitted evidence so long as they do not mislead the jury.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s analysis unfolds in five steps:

Employee’s Proof of Hours and Damages: Although the trial record contained inconsistent timekeeping systems (QuickBooks, ADP payroll, handwritten logs, and cash/Venmo payments), it was uncontested that BBWB’s records were inadequate. Under Mt. Clemens, plaintiff’s testimony that she worked on average 74 hours weekly—corroborated by partial QuickBooks entries and a coworker’s observations—sufficed to create a jury question on unpaid time.
Employer’s Knowledge: Plaintiff testified she repeatedly complained about unpaid overtime and that Colvard told her not to report “extra” hours. These admissions, plus a supervisor’s personal oversight of her every task, supported a finding of actual knowledge.
Liquidated Damages: Once the jury found willfulness, the court had no discretion to deny liquidated damages under § 260. Employer testimony that it had never sought advice on FLSA compliance did not establish good faith.
Evidence Admissibility and Trial Fairness:
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 did not bar introduction of BBWB’s own payroll and time records, which BBWB produced in discovery.
- A demonstrative chart used in closing merely summarized data from admitted exhibits (ADP print-outs, Venmo logs) and did not convert argument into unsworn testimony.
- The trial judge’s refusal to continue the case hinged on the unopposed fact that all “late” exhibits had been previously produced, and that BBWB themselves listed more exhibits than introduced.
- Because plaintiff’s claimed damages fell within the range of proof, and the jury did not exceed the evidence, remittitur was unwarranted.
Costs and Attorney’s Fees:
- Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a prevailing FLSA plaintiff is entitled to “reasonable” attorney’s fees and costs as a matter of course.
- The district court reasonably taxed photocopying costs for one set of discovery responses and three trial binders at established per-page rates.
- Using its own familiarity with plaintiff’s counsel’s credentials, the court set a $375 hourly rate and trimmed billed time from 299.5 to 208.9 hours, excluding duplicative or unproductive entries (e.g., hours spent on plaintiff’s own discovery lapses).

3. Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies critical aspects of FLSA jurisprudence in the Eleventh Circuit:

Employer Record-Keeping Duty: Employers who rely on informal or partial time-tracking—cash payments, Venmo, ad hoc logs—risk creating an inadequate record that shifts evidentiary burden in favor of employees.
Employee’s Proof Burden: Plaintiffs may satisfy their prima facie burden with testimony estimating hours worked, supported by spotty records and coworker testimony, so long as inaccuracies trace to employer conduct.
Liquidated Damages Presumption: A jury finding of willfulness under § 255(a) effectively shuts the courthouse door on any “good faith” defense to liquidated damages under § 260.
Discovery Sanctions and Admissibility: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 does not reach records an opponent produces. Parties must preserve their own documents, but cannot blame the opposing side for using its own data at trial.
Use of Illustrative Aids: Confirming the direction of the 2024 Fed. R. Evid. 107 amendments, the ruling endorses demonstrative exhibits that transparently summarize admitted evidence without injecting new facts.
Fee-Shifting Enforcement: The case underscores Congress’s objective that employers bear the cost of enforcement when they violate wage statutes, and that trial courts exercise robust oversight in fee awards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Burden-Shifting” in FLSA Cases: Under Mt. Clemens, when an employer’s records are missing or faulty, an employee need only show she performed unpaid work and produce a reasonable estimate of hours. Then the employer must prove the exact hours or disprove the estimate.
Willfulness & Liquidated Damages: A “willful” violation extends the FLSA’s statute of limitations from two to three years and triggers an automatic doubling of damages, unless the employer shows it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for compliance. A jury finding of willfulness eliminates the good-faith defense.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1): This rule penalizes parties who fail to disclose their own required evidence by barring its use at trial—but does not bar use of evidence from the opposing party’s production.
Illustrative vs. Demonstrative Evidence: Illustrative (or demonstrative) exhibits, such as charts or timelines, are teaching tools for jurors. They must be based wholly on evidence admitted into the record and may not introduce new factual allegations.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Keefe v. Britt’s Bow Wow Boutique, Inc. reaffirms that FLSA plaintiffs need not keep perfect time sheets when employers fail to do so themselves. By clarifying the contours of the burden-shifting framework, the presumption of liquidated damages, and the limits of discovery sanctions, the court strengthened employee protections and underscored employers’ strict duty to track hours accurately. The appellate ruling also demonstrates how courts should manage trial procedures—admitting an employer’s own records, permitting transparent illustrative aids, and policing costs and fees—to ensure that meritorious claims under the FLSA are resolved fairly and without undue procedural barriers.