§Why CasetextPricing

Order Submitted Matter

undefined

21 Cited authorities

  1. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 17,232 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

  2. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

    417 U.S. 188 (1974)   Cited 1,424 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption

  3. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 622 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that absent an exceptional showing of good cause, an appellate court will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief

  4. Kovacevich v. Kent State Univ

    224 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 247 times
    Holding that this court "defer to a prior case when two panel decisions conflict."

  5. Kassman v. KPMG LLP

    925 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that plaintiff's complaints "about her salary cut . . . discrimination generally . . . and harassment and disparate treatment generally" failed "to state a retaliation claim under the FLSA or the New York Labor Law, as there is no indication that any Plaintiffs were actually complaining of EPA or NYSEPA violations such that these complaints constituted 'an assertion of rights protected by the statute' and a 'call for their protection."'

  6. Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.

    50 Cal.4th 1389 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 160 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that penalties for violation of Labor Code § 203 are not recoverable under the UCL

  7. Lavin McEleney v. Marist Coll.

    239 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 205 times
    Holding that plaintiff, who identified a specific male comparator, can also compare herself to a statistical composite of comparable male employees in order to establish EPA liability as well as to calculate damages

  8. Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc.

    240 Cal.App.4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses

    H040375 09-30-2015 Miguel TELLEZ Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICH VOSS TRUCKING, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern, Torrance, Rania S. Habib, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, David I. Kornbluh, Stephanie M. Rocha, San Jose, Courtney J. Rogerson, Counsel for Defendants/Respondents. ELIA, J. Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern, Torrance, Rania S. Habib, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, David

  9. Alch v. Superior Court

    122 Cal.App.4th 339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 109 times
    Holding talent agencies that did not employ the plaintiffs could be liable for aiding and abetting their employers' alleged "systemic discrimination" in violation of FEHA

  10. Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran

    179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 80 times
    Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

  11. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,779 times   143 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

  12. Section 206 - Minimum wage

    29 U.S.C. § 206   Cited 9,034 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”