36 Cited authorities

  1. Barnhart v. Walton

    535 U.S. 212 (2002)   Cited 2,166 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “‘ 12 month' duration requirements apply to both the ‘impairment' and the ‘inability' to work requirements”
  2. Auer v. Robbins

    519 U.S. 452 (1997)   Cited 2,336 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"
  3. 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"
  4. Skidmore v. Swift Co.

    323 U.S. 134 (1944)   Cited 3,743 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the rulings, interpretations and opinions of the Administrator" of the statute in question, "while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority," were nonetheless available for guidance to the extent they had the "power to persuade"
  5. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.

    328 U.S. 680 (1946)   Cited 2,580 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where employer's records are inadequate, "an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference."
  6. Block v. City of Los Angeles

    253 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 670 times
    Holding that, at summary judgment, the court may not rely on evidence that is "based on inadmissible hearsay" and which does not "set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence"
  7. Armour Co. v. Wantock

    323 U.S. 126 (1944)   Cited 622 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that work is compensable if it is "predominantly for the employer's benefit" and noting that "an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing"
  8. Griffini v. Mitchell

    31 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 325 times
    Reviewing magistrate judge's findings of fact for plain error where habeas petitioner failed to file objections to report and recommendation
  9. Roy v. County of Lexington, South Carolina

    141 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 1998)   Cited 154 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, "where employees can . . . enjoy at least five uninterrupted hours of sleep, the regulations can fairly be read to mean that such employees receive an 'uninterrupted night's sleep'"
  10. Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc.

    899 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 149 times
    Holding that when employees were ordered to report to work at a certain time, but were made to wait fifteen minutes per day before actually beginning productive work, they were engaged to wait and the wait time was not de minimis
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,589 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 201 - Short title

    29 U.S.C. § 201   Cited 20,909 times   102 Legal Analyses
    Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work
  13. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,820 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay
  14. Section 516.2 - Employees subject to minimum wage or minimum wage and overtime provisions pursuant to section 6 or sections 6 and 7(a) of the Act

    29 C.F.R. § 516.2   Cited 403 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Listing records and information employers must keep
  15. Section 785.23 - Employees residing on employer's premises or working at home

    29 C.F.R. § 785.23   Cited 127 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Requiring agreements to be "reasonable"
  16. Section 785.16 - Off duty

    29 C.F.R. § 785.16   Cited 119 times   19 Legal Analyses

    (a)General. Periods during which an employee is completely relieved from duty and which are long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes are not hours worked. He is not completely relieved from duty and cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes unless he is definitely told in advance that he may leave the job and that he will not have to commence work until a definitely specified hour has arrived. Whether the time is long enough to enable him to use the time

  17. Section 785.7 - Judicial construction

    29 C.F.R. § 785.7   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that employees covered by the FLSA be paid for "all the time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place"