16 Cited authorities

American Soc. of M. E.'s v. Hydrolevel Corp.
456 U.S. 556 (1982) Cited 393 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding nonprofit organization liable regardless of whether its agents acted with intent to benefit organization, provided restraint had anticompetitive effects
Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. Farms, L.L.C
305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 191 times
Holding that FLSA requirements apply to H-2A workers, including the requirement that all wages be provided "free and clear" of improper deductions
Moldenhauer v. Tazewell-Pekin
536 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 105 times
Holding that "for a joint-employer relationship to exist, each alleged employer must exercise control over the working conditions of the employee, although the ultimate determination will vary depending on the specific facts of each case"
Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc.
2004 WI 86 (Wis. 2004) Cited 79 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee because it did not exercise "day-to-day" control over the franchisee's business akin to an employer's control over his employees
Myers v. Garfield Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
679 F. Supp. 2d 598 (E.D. Pa. 2010) Cited 51 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding sufficient allegations of an agency relationship where, among other things, "Jackson Hewitt required that G & J and its employees submit to training by Jackson Hewitt" and "published apparently mandatory codes of conduct that included policies on diversity and non-discrimination"
Cano v. DPNY, Inc.
287 F.R.D. 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the automatic stay did not apply to the proposed defendants where the plaintiffs alleged that the proposed defendants "are joint employers and, therefore, are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs for violations of the FLSA and NYLL"
Freemon v. Foley
911 F. Supp. 326 (N.D. Ill. 1995) Cited 62 times
Holding that where a defendant "possesses control over the aspect of employment alleged to have been violated, the FLSA will apply to that individual . . . ."
Reyes v. Remington
495 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 40 times
Finding defendant was a joint employer where it posted supervisors in the field and inspected the plaintiffs' work, creating "a single operation under ‘common control’ "
Zampos v. W&E Commc'ns, Inc.
970 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2013) Cited 23 times
Finding that the putative joint employer did not exercise the control of employees despite "making recommendations to de-badge" direct employer's technicians
German v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation
2000 WI 62 (Wis. 2000) Cited 28 times
Holding employees can bring an action for wages in the trial courts under Chapter 109 of the Wisconsin Statutes and the Administrative Code

Pope, Andrew v. Espeseth, Inc. et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding nonprofit organization liable regardless of whether its agents acted with intent to benefit organization, provided restraint had anticompetitive effects

Holding that FLSA requirements apply to H-2A workers, including the requirement that all wages be provided "free and clear" of improper deductions

Holding that "for a joint-employer relationship to exist, each alleged employer must exercise control over the working conditions of the employee, although the ultimate determination will vary depending on the specific facts of each case"

Holding that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee because it did not exercise "day-to-day" control over the franchisee's business akin to an employer's control over his employees

Finding sufficient allegations of an agency relationship where, among other things, "Jackson Hewitt required that G & J and its employees submit to training by Jackson Hewitt" and "published apparently mandatory codes of conduct that included policies on diversity and non-discrimination"

Holding that the automatic stay did not apply to the proposed defendants where the plaintiffs alleged that the proposed defendants "are joint employers and, therefore, are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs for violations of the FLSA and NYLL"

Holding that where a defendant "possesses control over the aspect of employment alleged to have been violated, the FLSA will apply to that individual . . . ."

Finding defendant was a joint employer where it posted supervisors in the field and inspected the plaintiffs' work, creating "a single operation under ‘common control’ "

Finding that the putative joint employer did not exercise the control of employees despite "making recommendations to de-badge" direct employer's technicians

Holding employees can bring an action for wages in the trial courts under Chapter 109 of the Wisconsin Statutes and the Administrative Code