27 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 261,602 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 274,949 times   368 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
  3. Christensen v. Harris County

    529 U.S. 576 (2000)   Cited 1,905 times   19 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. Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp.

    765 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2014)   Cited 826 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "a plaintiff's claim that she ‘typically’ worked forty hours per week, worked extra hours during such a forty-hour week, and was not compensated for extra hours beyond forty hours he or she worked during one or more of those forty-hour weeks, would suffice" to state an FLSA claim
  5. Hill v. White

    321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 866 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]e review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under 12(b) for failure to state a claim"
  6. Financial Sec. v. Stephens, Inc.

    500 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2007)   Cited 631 times
    Holding that it is appropriate to consider a document attached to a motion to dismiss when "a plaintiff refers to a document in its complaint, the document is central to its claim, its contents are not in dispute, and the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss"
  7. Barron v. Reich

    13 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 979 times
    Holding that a statute's use of the word "may," unlike the word "shall," generally confers discretion on the agency
  8. Fast v. Applebee's Intern. Inc.

    638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011)   Cited 143 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that its decision was not determining whether the duties alleged were tipped or non-tipped duties, just that the FOH interpretation of the FLSA governed the case
  9. Adair v. City of Kirkland

    185 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that a district court did not err in applying a similar approach
  10. Pellon v. Business Representation International

    528 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2007)   Cited 57 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that it would "defy logic to require the display of inadequate information regarding the minimum wage and employer tip credit" and therefore that "a prominently displayed poster using language approved by the Department of Labor to explain 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) is sufficient notice"
  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 355,868 times   945 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 206 - Minimum wage

    29 U.S.C. § 206   Cited 8,996 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”
  13. Section 203 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 203   Cited 6,937 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "custom or practice" under a collective-bargaining agreement can make changing clothes noncompensable
  14. Section 551 - Definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 551   Cited 4,842 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition set out in the APA
  15. Section 204 - Administration

    29 U.S.C. § 204   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, with some exceptions, "the Director of the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to administer the provisions of this chapter with respect to any individual employed by the United States"
  16. Section 776.4 - Workweek standard

    29 C.F.R. § 776.4   Cited 41 times

    (a) The workweek is to be taken as the standard in determining the applicability of the Act. Thus, if in any workweek an employee is engaged in both covered and noncovered work he is entitled to both the wage and hours benefits of the Act for all the time worked in that week, unless exempted therefrom by some specific provision of the Act. The proportion of his time spent by the employee in each type of work is not material. If he spends any part of the workweek in covered work he will be considered