Seventh Circuit Decision Clarifies Standards for FLSA Overtime Cases

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals[1] recently clarified the evidentiary bar for employees bringing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime claims, requiring employees to provide specific, detailed evidence of their work hours and duties at the summary judgment stage, even when employers fail to keep accurate time records under the FLSA. As the Court of Appeals acknowledged in its opinion, courts in the Seventh Circuit have previously conflated liability and damages phases when applying the less burdensome “just and reasonable inference” standard. The Court clarified that the  “just and reasonable inference” standard should be applied at the liability stage only, not at the summary judgment stage.

Osborn v. JAB Management Services, Inc.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Osborn v. JAB Management Services, Inc., 126 F.4th 1250 (7th Cir. 2025), provides clarification on the evidentiary standards in FLSA overtime cases. The court affirmed that the initial burden of proving a violation of the FLSA rests with the employee.[2] However, to survive summary judgment, an employee must show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they worked overtime at all, and such material facts cannot be based on vague, self-serving testimony.[3]

Plaintiff Tara Osborn sued her longtime, former employer, JAB Management Services, Inc., for misclassification of her position as a salaried, exempt employee and argued that she was owed overtime because her position should have been classified as hourly, non-exempt. JAB Management Services did not dispute that Plaintiff’s position was misclassified but did dispute that Plaintiff was actually working overtime. Because Plaintiff was a salaried employee, the company did not keep records of her hours worked. Instead, the burden was on Plaintiff to show that she was actually working overtime hours beyond her mere allegations of working on average 15 hours of overtime per week.[4]

During deposition, Plaintiff was unable to articulate with specificity the hours she routinely worked or why she was of the belief that she regularly worked 55 hours per week. Further, Plaintiff’s deposition testimony was inconsistent with respect to her work schedule, failing to consider specific instances where her hours likely fluctuated as a result of declining call volumes and changes to her job duties.[5]

Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Plaintiff had not cleared her burden of proof in that the scant, self-serving evidence provided by Plaintiff would allow a trier of fact to approximate the extent of her overtime, even if an FLSA violation had indeed occurred.[6]

Impact on Future FLSA Rulings

The Osborn ruling clarifies the Seventh Circuit’s position on the evidentiary requirements for FLSA overtime actions, and the rule aligns the Seventh Circuit with similar decisions in both the Sixth[7][8] and Eight Circuits[9][10]. Going forward, employees will need to provide more specific and detailed evidence of their overtime work to survive summary judgment; vague descriptions of schedules or duties will likely be insufficient. The ruling also makes it easier for employers to defend against FLSA claims, particularly at the summary judgment stage. However, while the burden remains on employees to prove their claims, the decision underscores the importance of accurate timekeeping practices for both employers and employees, especially considering the record requirements under the FLSA[11].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Osborn ruling represents a significant development in FLSA jurisprudence. By clarifying the evidentiary standards and aligning with other circuits, it provides a more consistent framework for adjudicating overtime claims. While this may present challenges for employees bringing FLSA claims, it also incentivizes better record-keeping practices and may lead to more efficient resolution of disputes. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, both employers and employees must remain vigilant in documenting work hours and duties to effectively navigate potential FLSA claims.

[1] The Seventh Circuit includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

[2] Osborn v. JAB Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 126 F.4th 1250, 1256 (7th Cir. 2025).

[3] Id. at 1260.

[4] Id. at 1255-1256.

[5] Id. at 1259-1260.

[6] Id. at 1264.

[7] The Sixth Circuit includes the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

[8] See Viet v. Le, 951 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2020).

[9] See Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., 771 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2014).

[10] The Eight Circuit includes the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

[11] See 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).

——————————————————————–

This DarrowEverett Insight should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. This Insight is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your attorney concerning any particular situation and any specific legal question you may have. Please reach out to us if you need help addressing any of the issues discussed in this Insight, or any other issues or concerns you may have relating to your business. We are ready to help guide you through these challenging times.

This Insight does not constitute written tax advice as described in 31 C.F.R. §10, et seq. and is not intended or written by us to be used and/or relied on as written tax advice for any purpose including, without limitation, the marketing of any transaction addressed herein. Any U.S. federal tax advice rendered by DarrowEverett LLP shall be conspicuously labeled as such, shall include a discussion of all relevant facts and circumstances, as well as of any representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) upon which we rely, applicable to transactions discussed therein in compliance with 31 C.F.R. §10.37, shall relate the applicable law and authorities to the facts, and shall set forth any applicable limits on the use of such advice.