Atlanta Prof'l Firefighters v. Atlanta

7 Citing briefs

  1. Allemani v. Pratt Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed October 25, 2013

    As such, determining whether Pratt can establish the “good faith” defense must wait until Plaintiffs have actually established at trial that it violated the FLSA. Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, 920 F.2d at 806. 7 Plaintiffs contend in their Brief that they have met their prima facie case under the FLSA and thus need only prove the amount of damages at trial.

  2. Batie-Collier et al v. American Eldercare Inc et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial

    Filed February 28, 2017

    Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have repeatedly deferred to these regulations in determining whether an employee is covered by the FLSA. See, e.g., Martin v. Cooper Elec., 940 F.2d 896, 904-06 (3d Cir. 1991); Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. City of Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 804-05 (11th Cir. 1991); Dalheim, 918 F.2d at 1230-31. The “administrative” exemption only applies to employees: (1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week, exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities; (2) Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers; and (3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

  3. Guerra v. Koswire, Inc. et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 9, 2016

    With respect to Plaintiff’s direct evidence of retaliation, Defendants downplay their own admissions, but their attempts to recast their own testimony are 9 Defendants rely on Atlanta Prof’l Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. City of Atlanta, but they misread this authority. 920 F.2d 800, 803 (11th Cir. 1991). In that case, the district court awarded damages under a breach of contract theory, not the FLSA, and, thus, declined to award liquidated damages under § 216(b).

  4. Newburg v. Paperless Solutions Intl, Llc

    MOTION for partial summary judgment

    Filed September 1, 2016

    Specifically, it has long been established that coverage under the FLSA should be broadly construed in favor of the employee, and exemptions narrowly applied against an employer. See Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392 (1960); Powell v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 516 (1950); see also Hogan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 621, 625 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Atlanta Prof'l Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. City of Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 804 (11th Cir.1991)). That is, the Case 8:15-cv-02422-SCB-AAS Document 38 Filed 09/01/16 Page 7 of 14 PageID 425 8 employer bears the heavy burden to prove that a particular exemption applies by “clear and affirmative evidence,” and if the record is unclear as to one or more of the exemption’s requirements, the employer will be held not to have satisfied its burden and summary judgment must be denied.

  5. Ortega v. Bel Fuse, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Statement of Materail Facts

    Filed March 25, 2016

    The employer carries the burden of proving an exemption, Hogan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 621, 625 (11th Cir. 2004), and in determining whether an exemption exists, the overtime provisions of Section 207 are narrowly construed against the employer. Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 804 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Avery v. City of Talladega, Ala., 24 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 1994). The employer must prove the applicability of an exemption by clear and affirmative evidence.

  6. Knight v. Paul & Ron Enterprises, Inc.

    MOTION for summary judgment

    Filed April 18, 2014

    Specifically, it has long been established that coverage under the FLSA should be broadly construed in favor of the employee, and exemptions narrowly applied against an employer. See Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392 (1960); Powell v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 516 (1950); see also Hogan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 621, 625 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Atlanta Prof'l Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. City of Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 804 (11th Case 8:13-cv-00310-CEH-EAJ Document 32 Filed 04/18/14 Page 9 of 21 PageID 122 Cir.1991)). That is, the employer bears the heavy burden to prove that a particular exemption applies by “clear and affirmative evidence,” and if the record is unclear as to one or more of the exemption’s requirements, the employer will be held not to have satisfied its burden and summary judgment must be denied.

  7. Shaw v. Bank of America Corporation

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 7, 2009

    The employer bears the burden of proof by clear and affirmative evidence, and an exemption must be narrowly construed. Gregory, 555 F.2d at 1302; see also Atlanta Prof’s Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. City of Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 804 (11th Cir. 1991). IV.