Court is of the opinion that Carman has pointed to a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Meritage was aware that she was working unreported overtime. Meritage attests that Car-man was informed of the timekeeping policy and trained how to properly record her time, and it was therefore unaware that Carman was working unreported overtime. However, there is deposition testimony that Carman’s supervisors — sales managers — instructed her not to report the time she spent working before and after the model home was scheduled to be open. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Carman, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Meritage had knowledge that Carman was working unreported overtime. See Brennan v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 482 F.2d 825, 828 (5th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). The Court is also of the opinion that Carman
holding that the company could not disclaim knowledge of unreported overtime when the immediate supervisors of the plaintiffs had essentially instructed them not to report hours over certain limits holding that an insurance company does not act in bad faith solely because it fails to accept a settlement offer within the deadline set by the injured persons attorney but that a jury question on the reasonableness of the insurers actions arose when an insurance company failed to respond to a deadline to settle a claim within policy limits when the company had knowledge of clear liability and special damages exceeding the policy limits holding over holding that section 226 requires an employer to report all hours worked not reporting hours disputed  regardless of good faith does not meet that standard holding plaintiffs claims could not succeed without proof that the city had knowledge of prior incidents