22 Cited authorities

Auer v. Robbins
519 U.S. 452 (1997) Cited 2,337 times 88 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal agency's interpretation of a regulation is controlling where it is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"
Christensen v. Harris County
529 U.S. 576 (2000) Cited 1,893 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that agency interpretations contained in "policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law do not warrant Chevron-style deference"
Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ.
495 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) Cited 1,042 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that employees' "statements regarding the amount and extent of ... uncompensated work in declarations and deposition testimony" were sufficient to prove damages
Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc.
361 U.S. 388 (1960) Cited 772 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer bears burden of proof, on each and every element of the claimed exemption
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
Levinson v. Spector Motor Co.
330 U.S. 649 (1947) Cited 255 times
Holding that a "driver's work . . . obviously and dramatically affects the safety of operation of the carrier during every moment that he is driving . . . ."
Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms, Inc.
360 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2004) Cited 139 times
Holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded costs to non-prevailing indigent parties because the non-prevailing parties failed to offer a reason why the prevailing party should be penalized with a denial of costs
Intracomm v. Bajaj
492 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2007) Cited 90 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that while the combination exemption "permits the blending of exempt duties for purposes of defining an employee's primary duty," it does not relieve employers of their burden to independently establish the other requirements, such as payment on a salary basis, of each exemption whose duties are combined
Schaefer v. Ind. Mich. Power Co.
358 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 92 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that even though some of employee's duties appeared to satisfy the directly related element, the element was not satisfied where those duties were not part of his primary duty
Joiner v. City of Macon
814 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1987) Cited 116 times
Holding that an employer who knew or who had reason to know that the FLSA applied cannot establish good faith as a defense
Section 782.2 - Requirements for exemption in general
29 C.F.R. § 782.2 Cited 313 times 8 Legal Analyses
Noting that the determination must look to what an employee does in "the ordinary course of his work"
Section 782.7 - Interstate commerce requirements of exemption
29 C.F.R. § 782.7 Cited 101 times 7 Legal Analyses
Defining interstate commerce as: "[h]ighway transportation by motor vehicle from one State to another," or "[t]ransportation within a single [s]tate . . . forms a part of a practical continuity of movement across [s]tate lines from the point of origin to the point of destination"
Section 376.2 - Definitions
49 C.F.R. § 376.2 Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Defining "lease"

Rodgers v. Averitt Express, Inc.

22 Cited authorities

Holding that a federal agency's interpretation of a regulation is controlling where it is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"

Holding that agency interpretations contained in "policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law do not warrant Chevron-style deference"

Holding that employees' "statements regarding the amount and extent of ... uncompensated work in declarations and deposition testimony" were sufficient to prove damages

Holding that employer bears burden of proof, on each and every element of the claimed exemption

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 a "driver's work . . . obviously and dramatically affects the safety of operation of the carrier during every moment that he is driving . . . ."

Holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded costs to non-prevailing indigent parties because the non-prevailing parties failed to offer a reason why the prevailing party should be penalized with a denial of costs

Holding that even though some of employee's duties appeared to satisfy the directly related element, the element was not satisfied where those duties were not part of his primary duty

Holding that an employer who knew or who had reason to know that the FLSA applied cannot establish good faith as a defense

Noting that the determination must look to what an employee does in "the ordinary course of his work"

Defining interstate commerce as: "[h]ighway transportation by motor vehicle from one State to another," or "[t]ransportation within a single [s]tate . . . forms a part of a practical continuity of movement across [s]tate lines from the point of origin to the point of destination"

Defining "lease"