Conner v. Cleveland County: Fourth Circuit Recognizes Overtime Gap Time Claims Under FLSA
In Conner v. Cleveland County, N. Carolina, 22 F.4th 412 (4th Cir. 2022), the Fourth Circuit held that the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) allow claims for “overtime gap time.” Overtime gap time refers to a particular type of wage-payment...
Cruz v. Maypa: Equitable Tolling in FLSA Cases
In Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014), the Fourth Circuit held that the limitations period for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act was equitably tolled because the employer failed to post the required notice explaining workers’ rights under the FLSA....
United States v. Darby: Commerce Clause, Manufacturing, and the FLSA
In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941), the Supreme Court held that Congress had power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to enact the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The Court held that the Commerce Clause permitted Congress,...
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro: Application of the FLSA to State and Local Governments
In Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005 (1985), the Supreme Court held that Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to a municipal transit authority. The case is important because it...
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers: DOL Powers and Overtime Protections for Mortgage Loan Officers
In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015), the Supreme Court held that an agency, like the Department of Labor, is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that...
Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co.: Overtime Protections for Loan Officers
In Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290 (1959) the Supreme Court held that the business of making personal loans to individuals does not constitute "sales of . . . services" by a "retail or service establishment," within the meaning of the retail and service...
Ex Parte Young: A Partial Way Around Sovereign Immunity
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), stands for the principle that sovereign immunity does not prevent people harmed by state agencies acting in violation of federal law from suing the officials in charge of the agencies in their...
Federal Express v. Holowecki: EEOC Charge Defined
In Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008), the Supreme Court held that for an employee’s filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be deemed a “charge” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it must be reasonably...
Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents: Sovereign Immunity and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
In Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 120 S. Ct. 631 (2000), the Supreme Court held that although the Age Discrimination in Employment Act contains a clear statement of Congress' intent to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, that abrogation exceeded...
Coleman v. Ct. of Appeals of Maryland: Sovereign Immunity and the Family Medical Leave Act
In Coleman v. Ct. of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30, 132 S.Ct. 1327 (2012), the Supreme Court held that Congress did not validly abrogate States' sovereign immunity from suits for money damages in enacting FMLA's self-care provision. Consequently, State employees...