Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In an action asserting denial of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New York labor law (NYLL), N.Y. Lab. Law 650 et seq.; N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, 142–2.2, GEICO appealed the district court's grant of judgment against them and plaintiffs cross-appealed several rulings related to the remedy awarded. The court agreed with plaintiffs' argument that, in the absence of an award of liquidated damages, the district court abused its discretion in declining to award prejudgment interest on the basis that GEICO acted in good faith in treating its Investigators as exempt. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s decision denying prejudgment interest under the FLSA and NYLL and remanded so that the district court may award prejudgment interest. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Calderon v. GEICO General Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Field Medical Case Manager, filed suit against her employer, Genex, claiming that Genex was required to pay her overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), Md. Code Lab. & Empl. 3–401 to 3-431, for the overtime hours she worked. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Genex. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to come forward with any persuasive evidence that Genex violated the FLSA by classifying her primary duty as professional and, therefore, plaintiff is exempt from the mandatory overtime provisions of the FLSA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. GENEX Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Prime, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 95-25.1 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that she was unlawfully deprived of wages earned as commissions and overtime pay earned from work of more than 40 hours per week. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Prime's motion to compel arbitration, concluding that Prime failed to produce evidence demonstrating that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any of her claims. The court dismissed Prime's appeal from the class action certification order, concluding that its petition for permission to appeal the district court’s order was untimely filed. View "Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P." on Justia Law