[SOLVED] Santonias Bailey was an employee of TitleMax

Santonias Bailey was an employee of TitleMax of Georgia, Inc., in Jonesboro, Georgia. Bailey’s supervisor told him that TitleMax did not pay overtime, so he regularly worked off the clock. For example, on some Saturdays, he would work from 8:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., but—as ordered by his supervisor—would log only seven hours despite having worked nine. His supervisor also edited Bailey’s time records to report fewer hours than he actually worked by, for instance, subtracting a one-hour lunch break when there had been none.
Bailey resigned from TitleMax and ﬁled a suit in a federal district court against the employer to recover for the unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). TitleMax argued that Bailey was responsible for the unpaid time. According to TitleMax, he had never complained about his supervisor, and he had violated company policy with respect to keeping accurate time records. The court issued a judgment in the defendant’s favor. Bailey appealed.
The goal of the FLSA is to counteract the inequality of bargaining power between employees and employers.
In the broadest sense, this principle compels our holding here. If an employer knew or had reason to know that its employee underreported his hours, it cannot escape FLSA liability by asserting a defense based on that underreporting. To hold otherwise would allow an employer to wield its superior bargaining power to pressure or even compel its employees to underreport their work hours.
If an employee has worked overtime without pay, he may bring a private FLSA action for damages. An unpaid-overtime claim has two elements:
(1) an employee worked unpaid overtime, and
(2) the employer knew or should have known of the overtime work. Knowledge may be imputed attributed to the employer when its supervisors or management encourage artificially low reporting.
Mr. Bailey has shown both required elements. He worked overtime without pay. TitleMax knew or should have known he worked overtime, because Mr. Bailey’s supervisor both encouraged artificially low reporting and squelched truthful timekeeping.
No one disputes that his supervisor knew he was working off the clock. The supervisor’s knowledge may be imputed to TitleMax, making it liable for the FLSA violation. TitleMax argues that an employee is deprived of his FLSA claim because he underreported his time, even if knowledge of the underreporting is imputed to the employer.
TitleMax has identified no case in which any federal appellate court approved the use of this defense as a total bar to an employee’s FLSA claim when the employer knew the employee underreported his hours.
The dearth scarcity of precedent supporting TitleMax’s argument is persuasive, if not conclusive, evidence that its argument is misguided.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings. “Where, as here, an employer knew or had reason to know that its employee underreported his hours, it cannot invoke a defense based on that underreporting to bar the employee’s FLSA claim.”

Required:
Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938. More than eight thousand FLSA suits are filed in federal district courts each year. How do these facts support the court’s reasoning in this case?

Question: Santonias Bailey was an employee of TitleMax