Soon Ja Lee v. ZZIM USA, INC. d/b/a SPA WORLD, et al.

Lee v. ZZIM USA · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division · March 12, 2026 · No. 1:24-cv-1353 (RDA/IDD)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considers cross-motions for summary judgment in an action alleging that Spa World violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime. The court grants Defendants’ motion and denies Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that Plaintiff was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions under the commission exemption in 29 U.S.C. § 207(i).

Holdings

  1. The commission exemption in 29 U.S.C. § 207(i) applied because Spa World was a service establishment, Plaintiff's regular rate exceeded one and one-half times the federal minimum wage, and more than half of her compensation represented commissions on services. The compensation arrangement was bona fide because Plaintiff was paid based on customer transactions and her compensation was not effectively tied to hours worked at a constant rate.
  2. Plaintiff could not maintain an FLSA claim for regular wages alone because it was undisputed that her compensation exceeded the federal minimum wage and the FLSA does not provide a vehicle for recovering straight-time pay absent a minimum-wage or maximum-hours violation.
  3. The FLSA recordkeeping provisions do not provide a private cause of action for damages based solely on an employer's failure to maintain records.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's compensation arrangement qualified as a bona fide commission scheme under the retail or service establishment exemption in 29 U.S.C. § 207(i).
  2. Whether Plaintiff could pursue an FLSA claim for unpaid regular wages when she was paid at least the federal minimum wage.
  3. Whether Plaintiff could pursue a private action based solely on alleged violations of the FLSA recordkeeping provisions.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on overtime, unpaid overtime wages, willfulness, recordkeeping, or the applicability of the commission exemption.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (19)

  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 255 (1986)(followed)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)(followed)
  • Muhammad v. Giant Food, 108 F. App'x 757, 764 (4th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Monahan v. Cnty. of Chesterfield, 95 F.3d 1263, 1265, 1282 (4th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Gregory v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 2396873, at *7 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2012), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Gregory v. Fedex Ground Packaging Sys. Inc., 2012 WL 2396861 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2012)(followed)
  • Iglesias v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 2009 WL 8760729, at *3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2009), aff'd, 375 F. App'x 364 (4th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Frechette v. Blue Ridge Hospice, 2024 WL 4775101, at *5 (W.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2024)(followed)
  • Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U.S. 79, 81, 88-89 (2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…