Comments for Overtime Law Blog | FLSA Decisions

Comment on 11th Cir.: Following Tender of Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages, an Employer Only Moots a Case if the Plaintiff Agrees to Dismissal, Absent Payment of Mandatory Fees and Costs by S.D.Fla.: Defendants Did Not Moot FLSA Case By Tender of Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages Without Attorneys Fees and Costs | Overtime Law Blog | FLSA Decisions

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:35:24 +0000

[...] the first post-Dionne II case, a court in the Southern District has denied an FLSA defendants’ motion to dismiss based [...]

Comment on 11th Cir.: Trial Court Erred In Allowing Defendants To Amend Their Affirmative Defenses At Trial To Add Previously Unpled Exemption by S.D.Fla.: Defendants Did Not Moot FLSA Case By Tender of Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages Without Attorneys Fees and Costs | Overtime Law Blog | FLSA Decisions

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:33:50 +0000

[...] of wages and liquidated damages, only after prevailing at trial, and reversal at the Eleventh Circuit due to the trial court’s order permitting the defendants to amend their answer to assert a [...]

Comment on 11th Cir.: Following Tender of Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages, an Employer Only Moots a Case if the Plaintiff Agrees to Dismissal, Absent Payment of Mandatory Fees and Costs by Mark Beutler

Mark Beutler — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:47:43 +0000

In my view, the revised opinion creates more uncertainty than it removes. Dionne II, does not back away from Dionne I’s holding that plaintiffs must have a judgment to get fees. If a claim is moot, there is no jurisdiction. No jurisdiction means no judgment. No judgment means no attorney’s fees. That is true under Dionne 1 and Dionne 2. There are plenty of cases where the mootness issue is disputed, but the court held that the case was nonetheless moot. If a claim is moot, even though a plaintiff refises to concede mootness, how is the plaintiff a prevailing party entitled to fees?

Comment on E.D.Va.: Notwithstanding Prior Conditional Certification Of Almost Identical Class, Class Conditionally Certified by J. Page

J. Page — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:25:29 +0000

I am confused. Has the judge ruled for or against the store managers. Is there another class action suit against GPM Investments?

Comment on W.D.Tex.: Emotional Distress and Punitive Damages Unavailable In FLSA Retaliation Claim by Roger

Roger — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:52:12 +0000

Though Dean v American Security Ins Co, 559 F 2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977) says that ADEA cases and FLSA cases must be interpreted “consistently,” it does not necessarily follow that punitive damages are not available in retaliatory discharge cases. See, e.g., Marrow v Allstate Sec & Investigative Services, 167 F Supp 2d 838 (ED Pa. 2001)(allowing for punitive damages).

Comment on E.D.Va.: Notwithstanding Prior Conditional Certification Of Almost Identical Class, Class Conditionally Certified by J. Page

J. Page — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:17:31 +0000

In reading this, as far as timeliness where does this case stand

Comment on D.Colo.: Pizza Hut Delivery Drivers’ Minimum Wage Claims, Premised on Claim That Defendants Failed to Reasonably Estimate Vehicle-Related Expenses for Reimbursement Can Proceed; Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Denied by D.Colo.: Pizza Hut Delivery Drivers’ Minimum Wage Claims, Premised on Claim That Defendants Failed to Reasonably Estimate Vehicle-Related Expenses for Reimbursement Can Proceed; Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Denied | Coupons Pizzahut

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:25:20 +0000

[...] D.Colo.: Pizza Hut Delivery Drivers’ Minimum Wage Claims, Premised on Claim That Defendants Fa… Author: admin Time: Saturday, December 3rd, 2011 at 9:25 am Category: Uncategorized Comments: You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. RSS: You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Navigation: « U.S. military hands Camp Victory over to Iraqis google_color_border = "f6f4dc"; google_color_bg = "f6f4dc"; google_color_link = "802100"; google_color_text = "333333"; google_color_url = "802100"; //–> [...]

Comment on 3rd. Cir.: “Senior Professional Sales Representative” For Pharmaceutical Company Exempt From Overtime Provisions Of FLSA Under Administrative Exemption by U.S.S.C.: Court Grants Certiorari to PSRs on Appeal of 9th Circuit Decision Holding Pharma Reps Exempt Under the FLSA’s Outside Sales Exemption | Overtime Law Blog | FLSA Decisions

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:16:53 +0000

[...] companies’ arguments that they were outside sales and/or administrative exempt. While, the Third Circuit agreed that pharma reps were not outside salespeople because they did not complete any sales, in [...]

Comment on 9th Cir.: Notwithstanding DOL’s Position Otherwise, Pharmaceutical Reps (PSRs) Are “Outside Sales” Exempt by U.S.S.C.: Court Grants Certiorari to PSRs on Appeal of 9th Circuit Decision Holding Pharma Reps Exempt Under the FLSA’s Outside Sales Exemption | Overtime Law Blog | FLSA Decisions

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:12:05 +0000

[...] conclusion that pharma reps are exempt under the administrative exemption. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit held that, notwithstanding the fact that pharma reps cannot and do not consummate sales, their [...]

Comment on 3rd. Cir.: “Senior Professional Sales Representative” For Pharmaceutical Company Exempt From Overtime Provisions Of FLSA Under Administrative Exemption by U.S.S.C.: Court Grants Certiorari to PSRs on Appeal of 9th Circuit Decision Holding Pharma Reps Exempt Under the FLSA’s Outside Sales Exemption | Overtime Law Blog | FLSA Decisions

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:12:03 +0000