Cases by Issue - Fair Labor Standards Act

IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-1238

Petitioner

Abdela Tum, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gabriel Alvarez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Tum v. Barber Foods, No. 04-66

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Opinion

546 U.S. ___ (2005)

Granted

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Argued

Monday, October 3, 2005

Decided

Tuesday, November 8, 2005

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (argued the cause for Petitioner in 03-1238 and respondent in 04-66)

Irving L. Gornstein (argued the cause for Respondents in 03-1238 and petitioners in 04-66)

Thomas C. Goldstein (argued the cause for Respondents in 03-1238 and petitioners in 04-66)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the Fair Labor Standards Act require employers to pay employees for time spent walking to and from stations that distributed required safety equipment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Alvarez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

Yes. Justice John Paul Stevens, for a unanimous Court, wrote that putting on required safety equipment qualified as a "principal activity" under the FLSA. The workday began when employees started that activity and therefore included the subsequent time spent walking to the worksite. The time spent waiting to put on safety equipment before that, however, was not included in the workday because it was a "preliminary" activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act.

Christensen v. Harris County

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1167

Petitioner

Christensen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris County

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

529 U.S. 576 (2000)

Argued

Wednesday, February 23, 2000

Decided

Monday, May 1, 2000

Advocates

Matthew D. Roberts (Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court)

Michael P. Fleming (Houston, Texas, argued the cause for the respondents)

Michael T. Leibig (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Does the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 prohibit a public employer from compelling its employees to use their compensatory time without a preexisting agreement?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Harris County, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held 6-3 that "[n]othing in the FLSA or its implementing regulations prohibits a public employer from compelling the use of compensatory time." Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that, "under the FLSA, an employer is free to require an employee to take time off work, and an employer is also free to use the money it would have paid in wages to cash out accrued compensatory time. The compelled use of compensatory time challenged in this case merely involves doing both of these steps at once."

Auer v. Robbins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-897

Petitioner

Auer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robbins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

519 U.S. 452 (1997)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1996

Decided

Wednesday, February 19, 1997

Advocates

John B. Renick (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Irving L. Gornstein (Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Michael T. Leibig (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Michael T. Liebig (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Must sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department be paid for working overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Robbins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

No. In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that sergeants and lieutenants are exempt as salaried employees from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The justices rejected the argument that the possibility of suspension without pay moves the officers out of the exempt category.

Moreau v. Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1

Petitioner

Moreau et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 22 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 1, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

Harold M. Streicher (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael T. Leibig (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Klevenhagen, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Mclaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1520

Petitioner

Mclaughlin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richland Shoe Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 128 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Leon Ehrlich (on behalf of the respondent)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Richland Shoe Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. v. Brock

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-88

Petitioner

Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brock

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 27 (1987)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1987

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of Respondent)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Brock, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

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

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1935

Petitioner

Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sec'y Of Labor

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 290 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1985

Advocates

Charles Fried (on behalf of the Respondent)

Roy R. Gean, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sec'y Of Labor, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:17 +0000

Location

San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority San Antonio, TX

United States

29° 25' 26.8392" N, 98° 29' 37.0608" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1913

Appellee

San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Garcia

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Donovan v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority, No. 82-1951

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 528 (1985)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1984

Reargued:

Monday, October 1, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Advocates

William T. Coleman, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Laurence E. Gold (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Rex E. Lee (Reargued the cause for appellant, Donovan, in No. 82-1951)

Facts of the Case

The San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), the main provider of transportation in the San Antonio metropolitan area, claimed it was exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. SAMTA argued that it was providing a "traditional" governmental function, which exempted it from federal controls according to the doctrine of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976). Joe G. Garcia, an employee of SAMTA, brought suit for overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Question

Did principles of federalism make the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority immune from the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Garcia, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the guiding principles of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery were unworkable and that SAMTA was subject to Congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause. The Court found that rules based on the subjective determination of "integral" or "traditional" governmental functions provided little or no guidance in determining the boundaries of federal and state power. The Court argued that the structure of the federal system itself, rather than any "discrete limitations" on federal authority, protected state sovereignty.

National League of Cities v. Usery

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:08 +0000

Location

National League of Cities

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC 20004

Washington, DC 20004

United States

38° 53' 47.1372" N, 77° 1' 48.216" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-878

Petitioner

Usery

Respondent

National League of Cities

Consolidation

California v. Usery, No. 74-879

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 833 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, April 16, 1975

Reargued:

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1976

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Charles S. Rhyne (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Calvin L. Rampton (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In 1974, Congress passed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The purpose of the amendments was to regulate minimum wage and overtime pay for state and local government employees. The National League of Cities, as well as several states and cities, challenged the constitutionality of the amendments.

Question

May Congress, acting under its commerce power, regulate the labor market of state employees, which the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for National League of Cities, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Congress may not regulate the labor market of state employees. The Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting legislation which operates "to directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions." While the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause is "plenary," that power has constitutional limits. In this case, the exercise of the commerce power ran afoul of the Tenth Amendment which protects the states' traditional activities.

Falk v. Brennan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-844

Petitioner

Falk

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brennan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

414 U.S. 190 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 11, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, December 5, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Falk, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Brennan v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1598

Petitioner

Brennan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arnheim & Neely, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 512 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, February 28, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Brennan, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1021

Petitioner

Employees

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri Public Health Dept.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 279 (1973)

Argued

Monday, January 15, 1973

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1973

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Missouri Public Health Dept., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Maryland v. Wirtz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

742

Appellee

Wirtz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Maryland

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 183 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wirtz, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

None

Idaho Metal Works v. Wirtz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Idaho Metal Works

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wirtz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 31

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 190 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1965

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Wirtz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

274

Petitioner

Goldberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Whitaker House Coop.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 28 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, March 30, 1961

Decided

Monday, April 24, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Goldberg, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mitchell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

H. B. Zachry Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 310 (1960)

Argued

Thursday, February 25, 1960

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for H. B. Zachry Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Arnold

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ben Kanowsky, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 388 (1960)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1960

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Arnold, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Mitchell v. Demario Jewelry

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mitchell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Demario Jewelry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 288 (1960)

Argued

Monday, November 16, 1959

Decided

Monday, January 18, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mitchell, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

161

Petitioner

Mitchell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Finance Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

359 U.S. 290 (1959)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1959

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mitchell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Mitchell v. Lublin, Mcgaughy & Asso.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mitchell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lublin, Mcgaughy & Asso.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

358 U.S. 207 (1959)

Argued

Tuesday, October 21, 1958

Decided

Monday, January 12, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mitchell, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Mitchell v. Budd

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

278

Petitioner

Mitchell

Respondent

Budd

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 473 (1956)

Argued

February 29-March 1, 1956

Decided

Monday, March 26, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mitchell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Steiner v. Mitchell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Steiner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 247 (1956)

Argued

Wednesday, November 16, 1955

Decided

Monday, January 30, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mitchell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Mitchell v. King Packing Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mitchell

Respondent

King Packing Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 260 (1956)

Argued

November 16-17, 1955

Decided

Monday, January 30, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mitchell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

357

Petitioner

Maneja

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Waialua Agricultural Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 358

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

349 U.S. 254 (1955)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1955

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Maneja, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

None

Donovan v. Richland County Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-255

Appellee

Richland County Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Donovan

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 389 (1982)

Decided

Monday, January 11, 1982

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Donovan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1252

None