salary of $275 per week for 55 hours, he is entitled to receive the $275 for a 55-hour workweek plus a statutory overtime premium for each of the 15 hours he worked in excess of 40. 2 . It also appears that the majority may place the burden on Appellants to prove the nonexistence of such agreements. See ante, at 461 ("There is simply no evidence to support the firefighters’ contention that they did not agree for their annual pay to include an overtime premium.”). But, in fact, the City bears the burden of proving the existence of the agreements because the City is attempting to use the agreements to justify its exclusion of a portion of Appellants’ wages in determining Appellants’ regular rates. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 207(e)(5); cf. Clark v. J.M. Benson Co., 789 F.2d 282, 286 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The City correctly conceded as much at oral
holding that employer bears the burden of proving applicability of flsa exemptions holding plaintiff bears the burden of proving the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider ftca claim holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances holding defendant bears the burden of proving an accord and satisfaction defense holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury