§Why CasetextPricing

Aros v. United Rentals Inc et al

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to Section 216

19 Cited authorities

  1. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling

    493 U.S. 165 (1989)   Cited 2,999 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to implement § 216(b)

  2. Dybach v. State of Fla. Dep't of Corrs.

    942 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1991)   Cited 661 times
    Holding that a probation officer not a professional because the job did not require an advanced degree in a specialized field of knowledge

  3. Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.

    20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 340 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a court evaluates if an employee was primarily engaged in exempt duties for purposes of the administrative exemption to overtime pay, it must consider "how the employee actually spends his or her time" and also "whether the employee's practice diverges from the employer's realistic expectations"

  4. Morisky v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co.

    111 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D.N.J. 2000)   Cited 292 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that an exemption inquiry was "extremely individual and fact intensive," and deciding that "the individual nature of the inquiry required make collective treatment improper in this case"

  5. Haynes v. Singer Co., Inc.

    696 F.2d 884 (11th Cir. 1983)   Cited 244 times
    Holding that the district court properly declined to authorize notice to a prospective class, where the only evidence presented was counsel's assertions that FLSA violations were widespread and that additional plaintiffs would come from other stores

  6. Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc.

    385 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 130 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a jury question was presented as to whether plaintiffs were performing sufficient maritime work to qualify as seamen under FLSA

  7. Holt v. Rite Aid Corporation

    333 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (M.D. Ala. 2004)   Cited 99 times
    Finding that, where the defendant's allegedly inaccurate exempt classification of store managers and assistant store managers was the formal policy allegedly in violation of the FLSA, certification of the collective action would require an inquiry "as to the daily tasks of each putative collective action member to determine whether they are similarly situated to the persons identified by the Plaintiffs, and then, on the merits, whether they had suffered an FLSA violation because they were not eligible for overtime compensation"; hence, "the Plaintiffs employed as Store Mangers or Assistant Managers, * * * even within the region * * *, are not similarly situated"

  8. Woods v. New York Life Ins. Co.

    686 F.2d 578 (7th Cir. 1982)   Cited 183 times
    Holding that the court-authorized notice may not be on judicial letterhead or signed by a judicial officer

  9. Cano v. Four M Food Corp.

    No 08-CV-3005 (JFB) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2009)   Cited 82 times
    Finding that plaintiffs' affidavits containing "statements setting forth defendants' common denial of overtime pay, the named plaintiffs' personal knowledge of and the names of other co- workers who were allegedly subject to the same denial of overtime pay" demonstrated a "sufficient factual basis" that the named plaintiffs and the potential plaintiffs were similarly situated

  10. Lentz v. Spanky's Rest. II, Inc.

    491 F. Supp. 2d 663 (N.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 59 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the plaintiff did not establish he was similarly situated where the defendant produced evidence that as a head waiter he had different job duties than other wait staff

  11. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,322 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”