The Oyez Project: Unions Issues - Fair Labor Standards Act

Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc.

No details yet.

Auer v. Robbins

Francis Bernard Auer, a St. Louis police sergeant, other St. Louis police sergeants, and a lieutenant sued the respondent police commissioners, including David A. Robbins, for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The commissioners argued that Auer and the other petitioners were "bona fide executive, administrative, or professional" employees exempted from overtime pay requirements by the FLSA. Under the Secretary of Labor's regulations, that exemption applies to employees paid a specified minimum amount on a "salary basis," which requires that the "compensation...not [be] subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed." Auer claimed that that they did not meet this test because, under the terms of the Police Department Manual, their compensation could theoretically be reduced for a variety of disciplinary infractions related to the "quality or quantity" of their work. The District Court and the Court of Appeals disagreed with Auer's claim. Both courts held that the salary basis test was satisfied.

Brennan v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc.

No details yet.

Christensen v. Harris County

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) permits governmental entities to compensate their employees for overtime work by granting them compensatory time in lieu of cash payment. If the employees do not use their accumulated compensatory time, the employer must pay cash compensation under certain circumstances. Harris County, Texas, found that too many of its deputy sheriffs had too many hours of accrued compensatory time. Fearing a budget crisis, the county adopted a policy under which its employees could be ordered to schedule compensatory time at specified times in order to reduce the amount of accrued time that would otherwise require cash payment. Edward Christensen and 128 other deputy sheriffs in Harris County believed they had the right to use their compensatory time when they saw fit. The sheriffs sued, claiming that the FLSA does not permit an employer to compel an employee to use compensatory time in the absence of an agreement permitting the employer to do so. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, concluding that the policy violated the FLSA. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the FLSA did not address the issue in question and thus did not prohibit the county from implementing a compensatory time policy.

Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. v. Brock

No details yet.

Donovan v. Richland County Assn.

No details yet.

Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept.

No details yet.

Falk v. Brennan

No details yet.

Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop.

No details yet.

IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez

In two separate cases, employees sued Barber Foods and IBP in federal district court. The employees alleged the companies violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them for time spent walking to the worksite after putting on required equipment. The district court and later the First Circuit ruled against the Barber employees. A separate district court ruled IBP must compensate its employees for the disputed time. The Ninth Circuit agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the cases.

Idaho Metal Works v. Wirtz

No details yet.

Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co.

No details yet.

Maryland v. Wirtz

No details yet.

Mclaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Budd

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Demario Jewelry

No details yet.

Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co.

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co.

No details yet.

Mitchell v. King Packing Co.

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Lublin, Mcgaughy & Asso.

No details yet.

Moreau v. Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas

No details yet.

Steiner v. Mitchell

No details yet.

Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec'y Of Labor

No details yet.