15 Cited authorities

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro
138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) Cited 410 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption applied to each listed activity in a provision individually where the activities were joined in the list by "or"
Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.
267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,000 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding as long as the EEOC and the company are aware of the nature and scope of the allegations, the purposes behind the administrative filing requirement are satisfied and no injustice or contravention of congressional intent occurs by allowing piggybacking
Dole v. Snell
875 F.2d 802 (10th Cir. 1989) Cited 102 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that this factor supported employee status because earnings had not depended on the workers' "judgment or initiative"
McMaster v. E. Armored Servs., Inc.
780 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2015) Cited 37 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a driver/guard who drove half of her trips on vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds worked "in part" on those vehicles and therefore was a "covered employee" under the TCA
Avery v. Chariots for Hire
748 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D. Md. 2010) Cited 41 times
Dismissing claim for wages for pre-trip cleaning inspections where plaintiffs have not alleged that they were not paid the statutory minimum wage for each of the total number of hours they worked
Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
888 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (D. Kan. 2012) Cited 34 times
In Green and Knott, the plaintiffs shared the same job title and many of the same responsibilities. Nonetheless, the differences in their respective job duties were sufficient to warrant decertification of the collective action class.
Troy v. Kehe Food Distribs. Inc.
276 F.R.D. 642 (W.D. Wash. 2011) Cited 35 times
Certifying a class of forty-three to fifty-four workers
Snively v. Peak Pressure Control, LLC
314 F. Supp. 3d 734 (W.D. Tex. 2018) Cited 18 times
Discussing Johnson as a "cautionary tale"
Buckner v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
No. 5:09-CV-411-BR (E.D.N.C. May. 7, 2012) Cited 18 times
Holding that the plaintiff remained exempt under the MCA because "he regularly operated [non-commercial vehicles] throughout the course of his employment with UPS."
Aquilino v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
Civil Action No.: 04-04100 (PGS) (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2011) Cited 16 times
Noting that whether a plaintiff "satisfies the executive exemption criteria is 'an individual, fact-specific analysis'"
Section 216 - Penalties
29 U.S.C. § 216 Cited 16,343 times 140 Legal Analyses
Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”
Section 3121 - Definitions
26 U.S.C. § 3121 Cited 688 times 43 Legal Analyses
Excluding state employees

Medrano v. Flowers Food, Inc. et al

15 Cited authorities

Holding that a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption applied to each listed activity in a provision individually where the activities were joined in the list by "or"

Holding as long as the EEOC and the company are aware of the nature and scope of the allegations, the purposes behind the administrative filing requirement are satisfied and no injustice or contravention of congressional intent occurs by allowing piggybacking

Holding that this factor supported employee status because earnings had not depended on the workers' "judgment or initiative"

Holding that a driver/guard who drove half of her trips on vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds worked "in part" on those vehicles and therefore was a "covered employee" under the TCA

Dismissing claim for wages for pre-trip cleaning inspections where plaintiffs have not alleged that they were not paid the statutory minimum wage for each of the total number of hours they worked

In Green and Knott, the plaintiffs shared the same job title and many of the same responsibilities. Nonetheless, the differences in their respective job duties were sufficient to warrant decertification of the collective action class.

Certifying a class of forty-three to fifty-four workers

Discussing Johnson as a "cautionary tale"

Holding that the plaintiff remained exempt under the MCA because "he regularly operated [non-commercial vehicles] throughout the course of his employment with UPS."

Noting that whether a plaintiff "satisfies the executive exemption criteria is 'an individual, fact-specific analysis'"

Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

Excluding state employees