Andre Latimore appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Atlanta and denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment in his claim against the City for allegedly failing to pay him proper overtime pay. For reasons that follow, we affirm. We conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences and conclusions drawn from it in a light favorable to the non-moving party.1 Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that there is no evidence to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s case.3 A defendant need not affirmatively disprove the plaintiff’s case, “but may prevail simply by pointing to the lack of evidence. If the defendant does so, the plaintiff cannot rest on his pleadings, but must point to specific evidence that gives rise to a triable issue of fact.”4
Here, the record reflects that Latimore worked for the City as an aviation maintenance mechanic. He filed a pro se complaint alleging that the City did not properly calculate overtime pay due to him. Specifically, Latimore contends that the City did not pay him a “shift differential” when he worked overtime on the second or third shift, which have higher base pay rates than the first shift. The City moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Latimore failed to introduce specific evidence that the City did not pay him properly and that Latimore’s claim is preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act “FLSA”.5 Latimore also moved for summary judgment. The notice of appeal indicates that there was no hearing on these motions. In a three sentence order, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment —without stating on which ground it based its ruling —and denied Latimore’s motion. This appeal ensued.
