LYNWOOD PICKENS, individually and for others similarly situated v. HAMILTON-RYKER IT SOLUTIONS, LLC - Articles

All Content

LYNWOOD PICKENS, individually and for others similarly situated v. HAMILTON-RYKER IT SOLUTIONS, LLC

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 1, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: 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.

Attorneys 2: 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.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Ashlee Cassman Grant, Jennifer R. DeVlugt, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Houston, Texas, for Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Erin M. Mohan, Anne W. King, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; KETHLEDGE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

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.

Attachments: