§Why CasetextPricing

Perkins v. Southern New England Telephone Co Inc

Memorandum in Support re MOTION to Certify Class and for FLSA Collective Action Certification and Authorization of Notice

39 Cited authorities

  1. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling

    493 U.S. 165 (1989)   Cited 3,026 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to implement § 216(b)

  2. Morgan v. Family Dollar

    551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 914 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sufficient evidence supported jury's determination that Family Dollar Store Managers were nonexempt employees

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

    280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 676 times   7 Legal Analyses
    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) )

  4. Robidoux v. Celani

    987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 877 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"

  5. Marisol A. v. Giuliani

    126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 744 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court “ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified”

  6. Consol. Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park

    47 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 748 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members"

  7. In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.

    960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 680 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant

  8. 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

  9. Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

    191 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 444 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding constructive discharge not a tangible employment action

  10. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig.

    818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987)   Cited 422 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that with respect to a 23(b) class, unidentified absent class members that could not be located through reasonable efforts did not need to be provided with individual notice in order to be bound

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,128 times   1237 Legal Analyses
    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"

  12. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,458 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

  13. Section 31-60-14 - Employee in bona fide executive capacity

    Conn. Agencies Regs. § 31-60-14   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) For the purposes of section 31-58(f) of the general statutes, as amended, "employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity" means any employee (1) whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; and (2) who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees therein; and (3) who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations

  14. Section 31-60-15 - Employee in bona fide administrative capacity

    Conn. Agencies Regs. § 31-60-15   Cited 7 times

    (a) For the purposes of said section 31-58(f), "employee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity" means any employee: (1) whose primary duty consists of either: (A) The performance of office or nonmanual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of his employer or his employer's customers, or (B) the performance of functions in the administration of a school system or educational establishment or institution, or of a department or subdivision thereof, in