Luigi Vittatoe Dr. George Ackerman ELA2603 Administrative and Personnel Law November 23, 2015 Week 5 Case Study: Kellar v. Summit Seating 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide? Susan Kellar contends that she is entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act for work performed prior to the official start of her work shift. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, Summit Seating, because it found that Kellar's pre-shift activities were “preliminary,” that any work Kellar performed before her shift was “de minimis,” and that Summit did not know that Kellar was engaging in pre-shift work. While we disagree with the district court's conclusions regarding the “preliminary” …show more content…
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time? Keller claims to have unlocked doors, turning on lights, turning on the air compressor, reviewing employee schedules, and distributing fabric to other workstations. The district court did not hear from the plaintiff’s sister and co-worker. She stated that her sister didn’t work before the start of the shift. The district court found that Kellar’s pre-shift activities were non-compensable preliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act of …show more content…
Why does the appeals court find for the employer even though it failed to pay the plaintiff for compensable time? Kellar forgot to punch in and instead wrote her start time on her timecards by hand, she wrote the time for the start of her scheduled shift, not an earlier time. Kellar also never mentioned to the company’s owners or any other managers that she was working early off-the-clock. Kellar was aware of Summit’s policy prohibiting overtime work without prior permission and had even reprimanded another employee once for clocking in early. Under these circumstances, the court agreed that Summit had no reason to know or suspect that Kellar was working before her shift. Kellar’s wage payment claim under Indiana law was derivative of her FLSA claim, it failed for the same reasons. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on both claims in Summit’s favor. 5. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not? What if she had told the owners that she was doing this extra work but she continued coming in early because it was the only way to get started on time? Would the outcome of the case be different? Why or why
Norris- the plaintiff had worked decedent's farm, worked the soil, and harvested and marketed the produce. Plaintiff, working primarily without the decedent's aid, and drove the produce to various markets. She handled all finances and deposited them in the couple's joint banking account. Finally, the evidence showed that the decedent, an alcoholic, depended almost entirely on plaintiff's work in the produce business and as well her care of him while he was ill.
The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises. The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have Before Laduzinski accepted the offer, asked for a two-year contract; However, Perez told plaintiff that his position would be focused on managing the Alvarez companies' workload, since the Alvarez companies has "a lot of clients and were busy. " Laduzinski accepted defendants' offer of at-will employment and quit his job at J.P. Morgan.
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Once returning from the workshop, she confronted Michelle that Frostburg Fit might be in violation of The Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) is intended to protect workers against certain unfair pay practices or work regulations. The FLSA is one of the most important laws for employers to understand since it sets out a wide array of regulations for dealing with employees. Under the FLSA, it established minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting employees in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments. It also introduced the 40-hour work week, as well as overtime pay. Employees whose jobs are governed by the FLSA are either "exempt" or "nonexempt." Nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime pay. Exempt employees are not. Laura brought to Michelle’s attention that nonexempt employees, including herself, have been working over 40 hours. Due to the turnover, Frostburg Fit has been understaffed. Employees are not keeping track of the work done outside the facility. Thus, unpaid overtime hours could lead to claims. Frostburg Fit needs to determine areas in need of headcount. Once determined, those positions must be filled in a timely manner to decrease employees working outside their normal work hours. In case employees do need additional time, they must seek approval. Frostburg Fit will need to draft an
This case is a good example that if you are going to petition a case (like Tracy ...
This case comprises the plaintiffs, who file a lawsuit against the defendants for denying them overtime pay, which are an infraction of extra hour’s provisions and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standard Act. These non-exempted employees worked 59.33 hours per week with 19.33 additional hours being overtime hours. Moreover, the plaintiffs unpaid hours combined totaled 9,483 in a permissible retro. The claimant’s claim was asserted and bestowed $12, 207,880.84 plus attorney’s fees of, $119.843.75.
...lley, W. H., Jennings, K. M., Wolters, R. S., & Mathis, R. L. (2012). Employment & Labor Relations. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
On the afternoon of May 8, 1991, Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones—of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission-- works the registration desk at an official industrial conference in Little Rock, Arkansas (Motos, 1998). While working this event housed in an Arkansas hotel, the Governor of Arkansas requests Jones to meet with him in a business suite within the hotel. Therefore, Jones understood this request to be within the official state employee business. Hence, Jones obliged the governor’s request.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1; 57 S. Ct. 615; 81 L. Ed. 893; 1937 U.S.
An appellate court determined this to be factual and allowed the judge’s ruling to stand.
Modern America has overcome vast amounts of worker mistreatment, from child labor to unsafe work environments. Each time the corruption thrived for a while before anyone found a need to put a stop to it. Slowly but surely, the flaws in the system crept out of the shadows, disturbing every individual who had been previously ignorant. Mac McClelland reveals that warehouse workers still suffer from such unjust treatment in her article, “I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave.” After working in a real warehouse, she exposed the cruelty of her employers by providing an emotional description of her experience.
Hale was 60 years old when he was hired. Little did he know 4 years later he would be unemployed, the board informed Mr. Hale that he needs to leave the company he asked if he could stay on until the end of the year to retire with full benefits the board agreed. Mr. Hale was unhappy because he was forced into retirement, so he filed an age discrimination suit. While in court during the discovery he uncovers during a board meeting it was stated that Mr. Hale was too old. The courts ruled in favor for Mr. Hale and he could continue with his lawsuit, since the courts agreed with Mr. Hale APUSA settled the case (Gerber, 2011).
Maynard, W., & Brogmus, G. (2006). Safer shift work through more effective scheduling. Occupational health and safety, 16.
Next, the court believes that the employees were on their work time because work begins when the employee reaches the entrance to their workplace. As said by the Supreme Court in Bountiful Brick Company et al. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154 (1402) “as a general rule, employment may be said to begin when the employee reaches the entrance of the employer 's premises where the work is to be