25 Cited authorities

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling
493 U.S. 165 (1989) Cited 3,014 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to implement § 216(b)
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.
486 U.S. 128 (1988) Cited 1,952 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "plain language" of the Fair Labor Standards Act's "willful" liquidated damages standard requires that "the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute," without regard to the outrageousness of the conduct at issue
Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc.
982 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) Cited 564 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
Dybach v. State of Fla. Dep't of Corrs.
942 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) Cited 662 times
Holding that a probation officer not a professional because the job did not require an advanced degree in a specialized field of knowledge
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
Klinedinst v. Swift Invs., Inc.
260 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001) Cited 123 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding provision of DOL Field Operations Handbook persuasive under Skidmore
D'Anna v. M/A-COM, Inc.
903 F. Supp. 889 (D. Md. 1995) Cited 135 times
Finding plaintiffs' lack of evidence of company policy to be insufficient
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"
Davis v. Charoen Pokphand
303 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Ala. 2004) Cited 84 times
Holding a class including "employees with very different job titles and responsibilities" was overly broad to establish other plaintiffs were similarly-situated
Smith v. Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-2420 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2003) Cited 82 times
Holding that plaintiffs failed to make basic factual showing that the proposed recipients of opt-in notices were similarly situated to the named plaintiffs
Section 216 - Penalties
29 U.S.C. § 216 Cited 16,388 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 10,471 times 227 Legal Analyses
Establishing overtime rules
Section 255 - Statute of limitations
29 U.S.C. § 255 Cited 4,538 times 8 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that not all FLSA wage and overtime claims are willful
Section 256 - Determination of commencement of future actions
29 U.S.C. § 256 Cited 913 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
Section 790.21 - Time for bringing employee suits
29 C.F.R. § 790.21 Cited 115 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that "a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for . . . unpaid overtime compensation . . . 'accrues' when the employer fails to pay the required compensation for any workweek at the regular pay day for the period in which the workweek ends"

Parker v. Nutrisystem, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

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

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 a probation officer not a professional because the job did not require an advanced degree in a specialized field of knowledge

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

Finding provision of DOL Field Operations Handbook persuasive under Skidmore

Finding plaintiffs' lack of evidence of company policy to be insufficient

Holding a class including "employees with very different job titles and responsibilities" was overly broad to establish other plaintiffs were similarly-situated

Holding that plaintiffs failed to make basic factual showing that the proposed recipients of opt-in notices were similarly situated to the named plaintiffs

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

Establishing overtime rules

Recognizing that not all FLSA wage and overtime claims are willful

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

Providing that "a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for . . . unpaid overtime compensation . . . 'accrues' when the employer fails to pay the required compensation for any workweek at the regular pay day for the period in which the workweek ends"