Their responsibilities included greeting customers, recording their complaints, drafting service estimates, and suggesting work to be performed. While they regularly worked more than forty hours per week, they did not receive overtime pay and, in 2012, filed suit in federal district court alleging violations of the Flair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court held that although the relevant section of the FLSA—§213(b)(10)(A)—does not expressly exempt service advisors, the role is sufficiently similar to those of salesmen and mechanics to render the applicable U.S
In this case, Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York held that Ernst & Young’s prohibition of class and collective actions precludes employees from effectively vindicating their statutory rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is the second case involving collective action bans in the FLSA context in which NELA, The Institute and NELP have filed an amicus brief before the Second Circuit in as many months. Our amicus brief highlights the important national public policies that support the availability of collective actions under FLSA. We argue that depriving workers of their ability to enforce their rights fully to be paid minimum wage and overtime pay by prohibiting collective actions in any forum undermines the wage protection policies of the FLSA, rewards unfair competition by encouraging employers to engage in wage theft, and violates the public policy Congress sought to implement through the FLSA. We further contend that the statutory right of employees to act collectively is an integral part of vindicating their rights under the FLSA, promotes the broad remedial purposes of the FLSA, and supplements the enforcement powers of the U.S
NELAAmicus_Sutherland v Ernst & Young_05 18 12.pdf
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, urging reversal of a grant of summary judgment in this FLSA independent contractor misclassification case
Scantland Amicus brief filed.pdf
Ernst & Young, LLP , Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York held that Ernst & Young’s prohibition of class and collective actions precludes employees from effectively vindicating their statutory rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is the second case involving collective action bans in the FLSA context in which NELA, The Institute and NELP have filed an amicus brief before the Second Circuit in as many months. Our amicus brief highlights the important national public policies that support the availability of collective actions under FLSA. We argue that depriving workers of their ability to enforce their rights fully to be paid minimum wage and overtime pay by prohibiting collective actions in any forum undermines the wage protection policies of the FLSA, rewards unfair competition by encouraging employers to engage in wage theft, and violates the public policy Congress sought to implement through the FLSA. We further contend that the statutory right of employees to act collectively is an integral part of vindicating their rights under the FLSA, promotes the broad remedial purposes of the FLSA, and supplements the enforcement powers of the U.S
Plaintiffs were employed as an Assistant Store Manager and allege that defendant missclassified them as exempt and failed to pay overtime in violation of state law and the FLSA. The district court dismissed both cases holding that their state class action claims were inherently incompatible with FLSA collective actions. NELA's brief argued that: 1) hybrid FLSA/state law class action cases are necessary to protect the rights of workers because violations of federal and state wage and hour laws are rampant and government enforcement is inadequate; 2) workers are authorized to bring FLSA/state law class action cases in federal court under the federal jurisdiction statutes and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3) the FLSA does not preempt state law or the federal jurisdiction statutes; and 4) Congress adopted the FLSA's opt-in procedure before the ascendance of the Rule 23 opt-out procedure
NELAAmicusKnepper.pdf
In this case, Judge Sweet of the Southern District of New York held that Citigroup’s prohibition of class and collective actions runs contrary to the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and is therefore unenforceable. The plaintiffs and amici agree with the district court’s holding and also contend that a collective action prohibition would preclude opt-in plaintiffs with small value claims from vindicating their statutory rights to overtime pay under the FLSA. Our brief argues that the district court’s decision is supported by the independent legal grounds that a collective action prohibition imposed as a condition of employment is unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Norris LaGuardia Act, as recently held by the National Labor Relations Board in In re D.R
Raniere v Citigroup_NELAAmicusBrief_Final.pdf
At issue in this case is whether automobile dealership Service Advisors are exempt from the overtime protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is the second time in as many years that the High Court has reviewed this case, and NELA is proud once again to support the efforts of these employees to ensure that they receive full compensation, including overtime pay, for all of the hours they work. NELA’s amicus brief argues persuasively that a plain reading of the text of the FLSA supports the Respondents’ contention that they are not exempt from the statute’s overtime protections. In addition, the brief marshals a compelling array of sources in demonstrating that the broader remedial purposes of the FLSA also support the Respondents’ position. The brief was drafted by NELA member Jamie Golden Sypulski (Law Office of Jamie Golden Sypulski, Chicago, IL). #Amicus #FLSA #USSupremeCourt
NELA Amicus Brief_Encino Motors v. Navarro_US SC_120717.pdf
The brief argues that 1) the Court can affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision without resort to the FLSA’s “narrow construction” rule, because other canons of statutory construction (i.e., Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius and Reddendo Singula Singulis ) support the conclusion that service advisors are not covered by the relevant FLSA exemption, and 2) if the Court decides to reach the issue, the “narrow construction” canon is a well-settled method of interpreting the scope of FLSA exemptions and also supports affirming the Ninth Circuit’s ruling
Encino Motors v. Navarro_NELA and NELP Amicus Brief_040616.pdf
This case involves the appeal of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Hearst Corporation by concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the unpaid intern plaintiffs are employees doing work meriting payment of minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as interpreted by an earlier Second Circuit case, Glatt v
Wang v. Hearst Corp_Amicus Final_011317.pdf
DeMasters told Doe, in his opinion, Carilion management and HR had mishandled Doe’s complaint. DeMasters also contacted the HR manager and complained that Doe’s concerns were not being managed properly. Two years later, a Carilion manager informed DeMasters that Doe had filed a Title VII complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and was pursuing a civil suit against Carilion. In August 2011, shortly after Doe’s lawsuit was settled, DeMasters was called to a meeting by Carilion managers and questioned about his involvement with Doe’s harassment complaint. He was asked why he did not take the “pro-employer side” concerning Doe’s complaints and told that he had not protected Carilion’s interests, which left it in a compromised position
On December 20, 2012, NELA filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of a group of Home Mortgage Consultants (HMC) who alleged they were misclassified by their employer and therefore unlawfully denied overtime payments in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This case is a part of a multi-district litigation that could involve as many as 15,000 HMCs nationwide
In re Wells Fargo W & H Litigation_NELA Amicus_Final.pdf
Our brief supports the district court opinion and argues that a prohibition on collective action, as a policy matter, conflicts with the broad remedial goals of the FLSA and prevents employees from vindicating their statutory rights. Depriving employees of their rights to seek redress for wage and hour violations by prohibiting collective action in any forum undermines the wage floor and the policies of the FLSA, and rewards unfair competition by employers engaging in wage theft. We also submit that many employees will not pursue individual cases because (1) the small value of their claims will not support litigation, (2) they simply will not know that their rights are being violated absent FLSA collective action notice, and (3) their fear of retaliation will deter them from stepping forward on an individual basis
NELAAmicusBrief_Owen v Bristol Care_073012.pdf
This case asks the court to affirm a jury’s verdict that FTS’s company-wide policy requiring its cable technicians to work overtime hours without compensation violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The brief was written by NELA member Laura L
NELA Amicus Brief_FINAL_7.02.15.pdf
Plaintiffs filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) seeking overtime pay on behalf of a nationwide class of PSRs employed by respondent-defendant SmithKline Beecham, Corp., d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline
NELA Amicus_020612.pdf
She sought relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Symczyk's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the defendants extended an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 68, in full satisfaction of her alleged damages, fees, and costs
In this case, NELA filed in support of the plaintiffs’ efforts to preserve a favorable district court ruling on successor liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Our brief was drafted by David E
Teed_NELA Amicus Brief_Final.pdf
Busk , No. 13-433, a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. NELA members Mark R...The question presented is whether the time employees spend in security screenings is compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
13-433 bsac Nat'l Employment Lawyers Assn.pdf
The district court certified the FLSA claims as a collective action and the IWPCL claims as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(3), finding the FLSA and IWPCL claims substantively the same and subject to the same proof
Tyson v. Bouaphakeo_AARP, NELP, NELA Amicus Brief.pdf
This brief asks the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to confirm that Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) is more protective than the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the current federal floor for workplace protections, therefore ensuring that Amazon pays their workers for required screenings completed onsite. Amazon and its numerous staffing agencies have argued that they may rely solely on federal workplace laws, including the FLSA and Portal-To-Portal Act (PPA), in calculating labor costs and imposing its labor compensation practices
Heimbach v. Amazon Final Docketed Brief (3.6.2020).pdf
The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants and holding that the plaintiffs, drivers for defendants’ black car transportation business, were “independent contractors” instead of “employees” and thus not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court found for the defendants in spite of the “ample evidence in the record showing Plaintiffs meet the broad definition of ’employee’ under the FLSA as defined in settled Second Circuit law.” Amici urged the Second Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision and remand to allow a jury to decide the question of the drivers’ employment status under the FLSA. Misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than as employees has serious social and economic implications—and is a growing phenomenon
FINAL Filed Amicus Brief Saleem v. CTG.pdf
Amici argued in the brief that the FLSA’s overtime provisions were enacted to benefit all workers by spreading work and reducing unemployment. The FLSA effectively requires employers to pay a penalty or premium for relying on fewer workers to do the work and requiring overtime hours
MOTION PACKAGE-AMICI-LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF, AS DOCKETED.pdf
Moreover, an adverse ruling in this case could affect the other statutes that use the FLSA’s collective action procedures, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Equal Pay Act. #WageHour #ADEA #USSupremeCourt #ClassandCollectiveActions #Amicus #FLSA
11-1059 bsac NELA.pdf