39 Cited authorities

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling
493 U.S. 165 (1989) Cited 3,000 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to implement § 216(b)
Payne v. Pauley
337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 2,333 times
Holding that officers acted unreasonably by twisting the arms and handcuffing "a woman who was not threatening to harm the police officer or anyone else at the scene, was not resisting or evading arrest, was not attempting to flee, and was charged with ... minor offenses"
Myers v. Hertz Corp.
624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 1,217 times 6 Legal Analyses
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"
Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans
571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 620 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"
Maas v. Cornell University
94 N.Y.2d 87 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 562 times
Holding that Cornell's failure to follow its internal policies and procedures did not provide basis for breach of contract claim
Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc.
982 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) Cited 563 times
Holding there is “no question, therefore, that plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus between their situation and the situation of other current and former” employees where defendant admitted it had a uniform policy regarding them all
In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg
571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 266 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that class certification may be denied when "a fact-intensive inquiry into each potential plaintiff's employment situation" is required
McGlone v. Contract Callers, Inc.
867 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Cited 167 times
Holding that "'the delay caused by the time required for a court to rule on a motion . . . for certification . . . may be deemed an extraordinary circumstance justifying application of the equitable tolling doctrine'" without holding that the delay was "extraordinary"
Fasanelli v. Heartland Brewery, Inc.
516 F. Supp. 2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 188 times
Finding that declarations of nine employees, including plaintiff, was sufficient to infer common off-the-clock policies
Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp.
229 F.R.D. 50 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Cited 177 times
Finding that at the preliminary certification stage, "the focus of th[e] inquiry [] is not on whether there has been an actual violation of law but rather on whether the proposed plaintiffs are 'similarly situated'"
Section 216 - Penalties
29 U.S.C. § 216 Cited 16,327 times 140 Legal Analyses
Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,497 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"
Section 256 - Determination of commencement of future actions
29 U.S.C. § 256 Cited 911 times 2 Legal Analyses
Providing that an opt-in plaintiff's action commences, for purposes of the limitations period, when he files his written consent to join

Grant v. Warner Music Group Corp. et al

39 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to implement § 216(b)

Holding that officers acted unreasonably by twisting the arms and handcuffing "a woman who was not threatening to harm the police officer or anyone else at the scene, was not resisting or evading arrest, was not attempting to flee, and was charged with ... minor offenses"

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"

Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"

Holding that Cornell's failure to follow its internal policies and procedures did not provide basis for breach of contract claim

Holding there is “no question, therefore, that plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus between their situation and the situation of other current and former” employees where defendant admitted it had a uniform policy regarding them all

Holding that class certification may be denied when "a fact-intensive inquiry into each potential plaintiff's employment situation" is required

Holding that "'the delay caused by the time required for a court to rule on a motion . . . for certification . . . may be deemed an extraordinary circumstance justifying application of the equitable tolling doctrine'" without holding that the delay was "extraordinary"

Finding that declarations of nine employees, including plaintiff, was sufficient to infer common off-the-clock policies

Finding that at the preliminary certification stage, "the focus of th[e] inquiry [] is not on whether there has been an actual violation of law but rather on whether the proposed plaintiffs are 'similarly situated'"

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

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

Providing that an opt-in plaintiff's action commences, for purposes of the limitations period, when he files his written consent to join