18 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 235,628 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 215,830 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 112,871 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc.
64 F.3d 590 (11th Cir. 1995) Cited 1,124 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that moving party has initial burden of showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact for trial
Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel
316 U.S. 572 (1942) Cited 808 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that fluctuating pay plans do not violate the FLSA, even though under such plans "the longer the hours the less are the earnings per hour"
Valerio v. Putnam Assocs. Inc.
173 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 1999) Cited 182 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FLSA does not require a clear mutual understanding of "how [an employee's] overtime premiums should be calculated"
Samson v. Apollo Res., Inc.
242 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 145 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that employees had or should have had a clear understanding that they would be paid a fixed salary, where employer explained that they would be paid the same salary regardless of the hours worked, sometimes using formula sheets to illustrate the point
Clements v. Serco, Inc.
530 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2008) Cited 85 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may use FWW method to calculate back pay as long as parties had "clear mutual understanding" that fixed salary covered all hours worked
Bailey v. County of Georgetown
94 F.3d 152 (4th Cir. 1996) Cited 86 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant did not have to prove that each plaintiff "knew that the more overtime he or she worked, the less he or she would be paid for each of those overtime hours"
Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Co.
835 F.2d 1135 (5th Cir. 1988) Cited 81 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FWW method of overtime calculation is appropriate “when the employer and the employee have agreed on a fixed salary for varying hours”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 327,863 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 216 - Penalties
29 U.S.C. § 216 Cited 16,299 times 140 Legal Analyses
Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”
Section 207 - Maximum hours
29 U.S.C. § 207 Cited 10,421 times 224 Legal Analyses
Establishing overtime rules
Section 778.114 - Fluctuating Workweek Method of Computing Overtime
29 C.F.R. § 778.114 Cited 382 times 70 Legal Analyses
Prescribing total hours, including overtime, as the divisor when employers pay by shift without regard to fluctuating hours

Garcia v. Yachting Promotions, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that moving party has initial burden of showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact for trial

Holding that fluctuating pay plans do not violate the FLSA, even though under such plans "the longer the hours the less are the earnings per hour"

Holding that the FLSA does not require a clear mutual understanding of "how [an employee's] overtime premiums should be calculated"

Holding that employees had or should have had a clear understanding that they would be paid a fixed salary, where employer explained that they would be paid the same salary regardless of the hours worked, sometimes using formula sheets to illustrate the point

Holding that court may use FWW method to calculate back pay as long as parties had "clear mutual understanding" that fixed salary covered all hours worked

Holding that the defendant did not have to prove that each plaintiff "knew that the more overtime he or she worked, the less he or she would be paid for each of those overtime hours"

Holding that the FWW method of overtime calculation is appropriate “when the employer and the employee have agreed on a fixed salary for varying hours”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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

Establishing overtime rules

Prescribing total hours, including overtime, as the divisor when employers pay by shift without regard to fluctuating hours