Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23

Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay

Holding interlocutory orders appealable if they: "conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."

Myers v. Hertz Corp.

Holding that district courts have the discretion to certify a collective action by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs of the "pendency of the action and of their opportunity to opt-in as represented plaintiffs"

Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.

Holding that, where employer's records are inadequate, "an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference."

Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."

Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.

Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

Holding that refusal to certify a class "on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and ‘should be the exception rather than the rule’ " (quoting In re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 86 F.R.D. 407, 423 (M.D. La. 1980) )

Kuebel v. Black Decker

Holding that a triable fact question existed as to willfulness where the employer was aware that the employee's responsibilities might require over 40 hours of work per week and instructed him not to record overtime

Rule 23 - Class Actions

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Section 190 - Definitions

Defining "wages" as "earnings for labor or services rendered"

Section 785.11 - General

Interpreting the "suffer or permit to work" requirement to mean that an employer violates the FLSA when it "knows or has reason to believe that he is continuing to work and the time is working time."

Section 785.48 - Use of time clocks

Requiring employers to compensate employees for "all the time they have actually worked"

Section 785.47 - Where records show insubstantial or insignificant periods of time

Codifying Anderson in regulation

Section 785.12 - Work performed away from the premises or job site

Making explicit that employer that knows or has reason to know of work performed away from job site must compensate for that time

Section 142-3.12 - Employee