Employment – Employer prevails on FLSA claim

Where a man sued his employer for alleged unpaid wages, the employer was granted summary judgment on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The man was a piece-rate employee, his workweek ran from Sunday to Saturday and none of his hours were improperly shifted, his employer properly calculated and compensated his overtime pay and there was a mutual understanding between the man and his employer that employees would be compensated for all hours worked.

Background

Osvaldo Figueroa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, sued Butterball LLC, a leading turkey producer, seeking payment of unpaid wages under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, or NCWHA, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA. The district court dismissed the NCWHA claims, and then granted summary judgment for Butterball on the FLSA claim.

NCWHA

Figueroa alleged that Butterball failed to pay “all promised earned and accrued regular, straight, and overtime wages of one and one-half times the promised wage rate, which is a part of all the employees’ accrued and earned wages, and which should have been paid when due on the employees’ regular payday.”

For Figueroa’s overtime pay theory,
Butterball relies on the NCWHA’s exemption provision, which provides that the NCWHA provisions on overtime, minimum wage and youth employment do not apply to “[a]ny person employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.” Figueroa (an individual covered by the FLSA) responds that the exemption does not apply to his payday claim that includes overtime pay because the payday provision is not explicitly listed in the NCWHA’s exemption provision, like the minimum wage, overtime and youth employment provisions are.

He argues that the FLSA, not the NCWHA, entitled him to overtime pay and that he can pursue that unpaid overtime through the NCWHA payday provision, which he contends offers prejudgment interest not available under the FLSA. This court disagrees with Figueroa’s argument. Regardless of the statutory vehicle, the underlying overtime wages that Figueroa seeks arise from the same alleged overtime violations. Thus, to the extent that Figueroa seeks compensation for overtime pay mandated by the FLSA, his recourse is to the FLSA, not the NCWHA payday provision.

Now to the extent Figueroa seeks relief under the payday claim for a failure to pay the promised hourly rate (or something other than overtime), such a claim is not barred by the FLSA but still fails because Figueroa was a piece-rate employee. Figueroa signed an offer letter explicitly stating that Butterball would pay him “a load rate of $10.80.” A signed offer letter is a sure sign of agreement between an employer and employee on terms of employment and compensation. Figueroa cannot conjure a material dispute of fact by “recalling” that the offer letter stated something different, or by simply rejecting the offer letter “in its entirety.”

Butterball employee Russell Jones also testified that he informed prospective employees (including Figueroa) that they were paid “strictly per load rate,” getting “paid by the number of loads that you participate in.” And several of the opt-in plaintiffs knew that they would be paid under this compensation system.

Figueroa’s argument that Butterball’s online job posting and handbook provide evidence of hourly pay is unpersuasive. A job posting before Figueroa interviewed does not overcome the fact he signed an offer that stated he would be paid piece-rate, and accepted paystubs that displayed “LoadTrip” for years. Nor does a general handbook.

FLSA

The district court did not err in dismissing Figueroa’s FLSA claim on summary judgment. It correctly determined that Figueroa was a piece-rate employee, that his workweek ran from Sunday to
Saturday and none of his hours were improperly shifted and that Butterball properly calculated and compensated his overtime pay. Lastly, there was a mutual understanding between Butterball and Figueroa that employees would be compensated for all hours worked.

Affirmed.

Figueroa v. Butterball LLC, Case No. 24-1861, Jan. 13, 2026. 4th Cir. (Benjamin), from EDNC at Raleigh (Dever III). Gilda Adriana Hernandez for Appellant. Scott David Anderson for Appellee. VLW 026-2-011. 22 pp.