for determining compliance with the minimum wage requirement.” Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 569 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1300 (S.D.Fla.2008), aff'd 575 F.3d 1221 (citing Posely v. Eckerd Corp., 433 F.Supp.2d 1287, 1308 (S.D.Fla.2006) (granting summary judgment for employer on minimum wage claim where plaintiffs conceded “that when dividing their total weekly compensation by the total number of hours they worked in any given week, they never received less than $5.15 per hour”); United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 363-64, 65 S.Ct. 295, 89 L.Ed. 301 (1945) (approving the averaging of earnings over a standard workweek to determine whether minimum wage law has been violated); Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 580 n. 16, 62 S.Ct. 1216, 86 L.Ed. 1682 (1942) (<HOLDING>); Dove v. Coupe, 759 F.2d 167, 168
holding that representations and omissions must be considered together and in context to determine whether they affect the total mix of information and mislead a reasonable investor holding that while a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated findings of fact must rest on competent substantial evidence holding that to determine whether minimum wage law has been violated one must divide total weekly pay received by total number of hours worked holding that hours were excessive and that district court has the discretion and the duty to determine what a reasonable number of hours was holding that trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether city violated prevailing wage rate statute by failing to use one of two methods listed in statute to determine prevailing rate