to mean that the City specifically explained that Appellants’ salary represented the total amount of compensation—including statutory overtime premiums—that they would receive for working the agreed-upon hours. But that is an erroneous in terpretation, in my view. In the parties’ stipulations, the term “total annual [pay]” is contrasted with “hourly [pay]” simply to explain that the City’s Wage Classification Plan sets forth Appellants’ salaries in annual rather than hourly terms. Id. at 93. Thus, the stipulation that the City explains a firefighter’s “total annual pay” to him at the time of his hiring cannot establish as a matter of law anything more than that the City explains a firefighter’s base annual salary to him. See Rice v. Paladin Enters., 128 F.3d 233, 253 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The stipulation states nothing about whether
holding that in ruling on a summaryjudgment motion record evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to nonmovant holding record is viewed in light most favorable to verdict holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party holding that we view evidence in light most favorable to defendants requested submission holding that on review of grant of summary judgment to defendant stipulation must be interpreted in the light most favorable to plaintiff