however, is that an employer cannot apply the overtime hours that an employee works in one week to another week in the same pay period where the employee works less than forty hours in order to avoid paying the overtime premium. The FWW method and the FLSA determine whether overtime pay is required by examining the number of hours worked in an individual week. Employers, however, may issue pay checks on a biweekly or monthly basis — commonly referred to as the “pay period.” Therefore, rather than being surplusage, § 778.144(c) is meant to ensure that an employee is always paid an overtime premium for each hour worked over forty hours in a given week, regardless of the number of hours worked in earlier, or later, weeks within the same pay period. See Cash, 2 F.Supp.2d at 895 n. 24 (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that the FLSA and 29 C.F.R. §
holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force holding that to state a claim for wage violations under the flsa plaintiffs must provide at least some approximation of the overtime hours that defendants required them to work and a time frame for when those hours were worked recognizing a laches defense where a party expanded its sales volume from 15000 to 13 million over a forty year period holding that section 778114c is meant to prohibit the practice of cutting salary for a week in which less than forty hours is worked in order to counterbalance compensation for hours over forty worked in another week of the same pay period holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours