concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority in all respects but one. In my view, the district court’s lack of explanation for the finding of 30 minutes per week (or 5-6 minutes per day) of compensable time warrants a remand.
We have recognized that in certain cases a district court must explain how it reached a specific factual finding for there to be meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1136 (11th Cir.1984) (vacating and remanding because “the district court did not explain how it arrived at the twenty-cent figure” and instructing district court to “provide a full explanation”); Mutual Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312, 1326-27 (11th Cir.2004) (“The district court offered no explanation as to how it reached the conclusion that the offshore insurers’ denials were reasonable. Without explanation, it is impossible for us to determine whether or not the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion.”); Imperial Residential Design, Inc. v. Palms Dev. Group, Inc., 29 F.3d 581, 583 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (“Before we can effectively review this appeal, we need an explanation from the district court about its factual and legal conclusions”). In Carmichael, for example, the panel remanded because the district court, after finding wage discrimination, did not explain how it arrived at its determination of the back pay to be awarded to the plaintiff. See 738 F.2d at 1135 (“The court did not explain how it had arrived at the 20 cents an hour figure.”). The panel noted that the plaintiff had introduced substantial evidence indicating that the amount should be higher than the 20 cent figure but the “trial court’s opinion gives no indication why this evidence was disregarded.” Id.
As in Carmichael, a remand is appropriate here. The farmworkers claimed an average deficiency in recorded hours of 2.4 hours per day, but the district court awarded only 5-6 minutes per day. I recognize that the district court rejected some of the farmworkers’ evidence, but that rejection is insufficient, in my view, to permit meaningful appellate review. First, the district court did not provide any explanation for its finding that the farmworkers were underpaid by 30 minutes per week. Second, the finding was not supported by any citation to the record. Third, the 30-minute figure was not proposed by either of the parties, making it all the more difficult to determine where it came from.