Ninth Circuit: Anthony Sanders, et al. v. County of Ventura

Where, under a voluntary flexible-benefits reimbursement scheme, an employer retains as healthcare-related administrative fees some portion of the funds disbursed to an employee who has opted out of the employer's health insurance scheme, although the deduction is listed as a deduction from earnings, it is not part of the base salary used to calculate overtime wages under the statute, because the statute specifically exempts funds paid to a third party for an employee-related health scheme.

As a rulemaking that purported to set a hard ceiling for the amount of the employer's reservation contradicted an earlier holding, made no textual changes to the rule, and was based on determinations considered in the earlier case, the earlier holding controls.

Anthony Sanders, et al. v. County of Ventura

Eighth Circuit: Anthony Vines v. Welspun Pipes Inc.

 

Court did not clearly err in refusing to sanction a settlement under the statute due to the fact that the attorneys' fees had not been negotiated separately from the underlying claim, given the simultaneous negotiation in emails, calculation of fee on the basis of the the case proceeding without settlement, and implicit tying of the agreement on fees to the agreement on the underlying claim.

Award of de minimis attorneys' fees was an abuse of discretion, as the amount must be determined by determination of the lodestar value by multiplying the hours and the rate.

Given that the only rmaining matter is the calculation of attorneys' fees, no plain error sufficient to reassign on remand.

DISSENT:

Negotiating a wage claim simultaneously with the fees creates a significant conflict of interest.   Plaintiffs counsel, in fee negotiations, said that deft was getting a "pretty sweet deal."  Court below held that lodestar was inapplicable on this record.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/202168P.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Laura Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.

 

As the statute makes no provision for nationwide service of process, Due Process requires that the statutory joinder of out of state parties to a statutory collective action prove sufficient minimum contacts of the original deft within each forum state of the out of state parties.

DISSENT

The addition of new plaintiffs doesn't change the singularity of the lawsuit, within which the court has already acquired its specific jurisdiction.  Alternatively, the deft's conduct towards the out of state plaintiffs relates to its conduct within the original forum state.

As it's a national statute, interests of particular states aren't implicated in the same way.

The statute's designation of added plaintiffs as parties is merely to distinguish their status from that of representatives without a personal interest.

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0186p-06.pdf

Eleventh Circuit: Wendy St. Elien v. All County Environmental Services, Inc., et al

 

Three to five phone calls per week to out of state customers and vendors establishes sufficient interstate commerce for the jurisdiction of the federal labor standards statute, since the statute explicitly includes communication within its definition of commerce.

Wendy St. Elien v. All County Environmental Services, Inc., et al

Federal Circuit: Akpeneye v. US

 

The appropriate test in this context for work under the statute is whether there are either substantial duties or a substantial amount of time and effort controlled or required by the employer and primarily for the benefit of the company, rather than whether there is complete relief from duty.

Legal conclusions given in deposition testimony on employment conditions are presumptively not binding on the deponent entity.

While standby duties can rise to the level of actual work, here, since duty posts were covered, breaks could be taken away from public access, and there was a system for compensating employees if both break times during the day were interrupted, the standby duties didn't justify a clam for overtime.

Restriction that the employees had to remain in uniform and on the premises did not cause their breaks to primarily benefit the employer.flsa

Akpeneye v. US

Fifth Circuit: Aldridge, et al v. MS Dept of Corrections, et al

 

Given the savings clause, the federal statute doesn't create field preemption.

Although employees can seek relief under state or federal statutes, the federal statute preempts any state tort claims within its scope.

Aldridge, et al v. MS Dept of Corrections, et al.

Fourth Circuit: Desmond Ndambi v. CoreCivic, Inc.

 

As civil immigration detainees fall outside the traditional employment paradigm, in in that the work is not a bargained-for exchange of labor, the federal minimum wage law does not apply.  The situation of the detainees is similar enough to those in criminal incarceration that the rules for work in prison apply.

Desmond Ndambi v. CoreCivic, Inc.

Seventh Circuit: Anthony Simpkins v. DuPage Housing Authority

In considering whether a worker is an employee for the purposes of the FSLA, questions of fact are reviewed for clear error, while questions of law are reviewed de novo; at summary judgment, though, since the court makes no findings of fact, the question of genuine issue of material fact is reviewed de novo.

Here, sufficient question for trial.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2685:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173923:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Robert Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enterprises, Inc.

FLSA, Deference, Administrative


To determine whether additional duties are related to or incidental to tipped duties, look to logical relation to the tipped duties, not industry practice.

No Auer deference to agency boilerplate language for statutory notification of rights.


Robert Schaefer v.  Walker Bros. Enterprises, Inc.

Fourth Circuit: Samuel Calderon v. GEICO General Insurance Company

FLSA for insurance investigators.

An employee who provides investigative services for a class of employees who are considered exempt on a case by case basis is not him or herself necessarily exempt.  Relevant precedent in the public sector applies to the private sector as well.

Executives decision to the contrary was not willful and reckless, as they acted in opposition to legal precedent that was, according to their predictions, subsequently reversed.

Court correctly construed the contract as straight-time for hours worked.

Error under statute not to award prejudgment interest.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142111.P.pdf