§Why CasetextPricing

Statement Case Management Conference

undefined

30 Cited authorities

  1. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 17,233 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. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

    768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014)   Cited 511 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff"

  4. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 623 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

  5. Williams v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 238 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Concluding fear of retaliation cuts in favor of "facilitating collective actions so that individual employees need not run the risk of individual suits"

  6. Forsberg v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel. Co.

    840 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 490 times
    Holding a district court is "not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment"

  7. Spencer v. Va. State Univ.

    919 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2019)   Cited 169 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff did not offer enough evidence that the alleged retaliatory actions were material "and undertaken because of her complaints about salary equity."

  8. 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."

  9. Kassman v. KPMG LLP

    925 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 155 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."'

  10. 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

  11. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,781 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 9,036 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”

  13. Section 1 - Short title

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1   Cited 75 times

    This act shall be known as the Labor Code. Ca. Lab. Code § 1 Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.