Section 211 - Collection of data

47 Citing briefs

  1. Perez v. Sauson et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 28, 2016

    2. Further, Defendants are hereby enjoined from committing future violations of the FLSA’s a. Minimum wage provisions, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 215(a)(2); and b. Recordkeeping provisions, 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a)(5), and the implementing regulations found in 29 C.F.R. Part 516. SO ORDERED.

  2. Stuntz v. Ashland Elastomers, Llc et al

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed June 27, 2017

    37 (See, “Exhibit E,” Ex. 37), there can be no credible doubt that Defendants’ Management – Trudy Lord and Scott Hardegree – are the individuals who concocted the idea to carve out the Relief Time/FLSA Window from hours worked, which is a violation of 29 U.S.C. 211; 29 C.F.R. 516.2.

  3. Velasquez v. Glaser

    RESPONSE in Opposition re Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class

    Filed April 15, 2016

    For example, the right to sue for injunctive relief rests exclusively with the Department of Labor. 29 U.S.C. § 211(a) (2016); Powell v. Florida, 132 F.3d 677 (11th Cir. 1998). Likewise, employees do not have authority to sue for violations of the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements – that authority is vested in the Secretary of Labor.

  4. Calvo v. Summit Broadband Inc., et al

    MOTION for summary judgment

    Filed February 6, 2019

    Rutherford Food Corporation v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 727, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947). The Act imposes a minimum wage for covered employees, 29 U.S.C. § 206, requires that covered employers maintain records of their employees' services, 29 U.S.C. § 211(c), and prohibits employers from employing any worker for a workweek longer than forty hours unless the employee receives compensation for the excess hours at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which the worker is employed, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). A. EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR [2] The first question is whether Mr. Santelices can be considered an “employee” of CWI and/or SFCC who is therefore entitled to protection under the FLSA. A determination of employment status under the FLSA is a question of law.

  5. Ellison v. Canton Long Term Care, Llc.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed September 8, 2016

    Perez, 2011 WL 2672431, citing Singer v. City of Waco, Tex., 324 F.3d 813, 821 (5th Cir. 2003), and Stokes v. BWXT Pantex, LLC, 424 Fed. Appx. at 326. Title 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) requires that the employer "make, keep and preserve such records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions of employment maintained by him." See Lynch v. Jet Center of Dallas, LLC, Civ. A. No. 3:05-CV-2229-L, 2007 WL 211101, (N.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2007), Under the FLSA, "an employee who brings suit for unpaid overtime compensation bears the burden of proving, with definite and certain evidence, that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated.

  6. Gonzales et al v. Frandeli Group, LLC

    MOTION to Dismiss Under Federal Rule 12

    Filed April 18, 2011

    The FLSA requires employers to “make, keep, and preserve” records of an employee’s “wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment.” 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). The Secretary of Labor enforces the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements.

  7. Rosinbaum, et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc., et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 303 MOTION for Decertification

    Filed February 25, 2019

    The FLSA requires employers to make, keep, and preserve time records. 29 U.S.C. 211(c). Where a putative employer categorically fails to maintain time records, this is no grounds for decertification.

  8. James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Duty to Defend

    Filed October 14, 2016

    The Estonilo FAC alleges, in pertinent part: … ¶27. Defendants have made it difficult to determine applicable piece rates and account with precision for the unlawfully withheld wages and deductions due to be paid to Glidewell non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs, during the liability period because they did not implement and preserve a lawful record-keeping method to record all non-provided rest and meal periods owed to employees as required for non-exempt employees by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c), California Labor Code section 226, and applicable California Wage Orders. Plaintiffs and Class Members are therefore entitled to penalties not to exceed $4,000 for each employee pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e).

  9. Perez v. Tlc Residential Inc et al

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed September 15, 2016

    Accordingly, the Court should order injunctive relief against Defendants requiring compliance with Section 11 of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 211. IV.

  10. Perez v. Acme Universal, Inc. et al

    Motion to Approve Consent Judgment

    Filed March 26, 2015

    4. Defendants shall not, contrary to Sections 11(c) and 15(a)(5) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) and 215(a)(5), fail to make, keep and preserve accurate records of their employees and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by Case 1:12-cv-00008 Document 139 Filed 03/26/15 Page 10 of 18 (Proposed) Consent Judgment and Order 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them as prescribed by the regulations issued, and from time to time amended, pursuant to Section 11(c) of the FLSA and found in 29 C.F.R. Part 516. 5.