expected to work up to 48 hours in a given week due to their four-days-on, four- days-off cycle of 12-hour shifts, see App'x 52, Entergy appears to have deliberately eschewed the argument that employees can agree to a fixed salary covering a workweek that fluctuates within a certain range — e.g., up to 48 hours — without agreeing to unlimited hours at a fixed salary, see, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 19-20 ("[T]he only question for the jury was whether there was a mutual understanding that Plaintiffs' fixed weekly salary payments were compensation for all hours worked, or payment for 40 hours per week only.”). Accordingly, we need not here determine whether there can be a hybrid or partial application of the FWW method. See United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 311 n. 14 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Nor need we determine upon whom the burden of
recognizing that arguments not briefed on appeal are waived holding arguments not raised on appeal waived holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived