plaintiffs and collective plaintiffs. II. LEGAL STANDARD Because the Court has already found that defendants did not maintain proper payroll records pursuant to their obligations under 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) (2006), the Court may approximate damages under the FLSA based on “just and reasonable” inferences. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-88, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515, superseded by statute on other grounds, Portal-to-Portal Act, Pub. L. No. 80-49, 61 Stat. 84. Indeed, when a defendant has not properly maintained employment records, a court will give the plaintiffs estimate of damages a strong presumption of validity, provided that the estimate is reasonably derived from the record. See Arias v. U.S. Serv. Indus., 80 F.3d 509, 510-12 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). When assessing damages under the Anderson
holding that the threat of injury was not speculative because the plaintiffs had been previously charged under the challenged statute holding not necessary a suit filed while the government was still searching for the files and the plaintiffs requests were unduly broad holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim holding that the district court erred by not entering a judgment for the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs uncontested estimate of damages was not unduly speculative and was pieced together from disparate time cards signin sheets and payroll documents