FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - FLSA
73. The Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and restate each and every paragraph above as if said paragraphs were more fully set forth herein at length.
74. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA, as detailed in this Complaint.
75. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff HUDSON was employed by Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).
76. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff HUDSON was engaged in commerce and the corporate Defendants were enterprises engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).
77. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants violated the Plaintiff HUDSON’s rights by failing to pay Plaintiff HUDSON the minimum wage for each hour worked in each discrete work week, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1).
78. Defendants ' failure to pay Plaintiff HUDSON the minimum wage was willful within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 255.
79. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff HUDSON for the unpaid minimum wages, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorney 's fees and costs, and any other appropriate relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - FLSA OVERTIME
80. The Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and restate each and every paragraph above as if said paragraphs were more fully set forth herein at length.
81. Defendants violated the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be
For centuries, there has been a common relationship between employers and employees. Over the course of that time, the workplace and the jobs within it have evolved as new jobs were created, ways to execute tasks became more advanced and laws were enacted to put into place fair employment for those in the workforce. In 1938, congress would pass and President Roosevelt would sign the Wages and Hours Bill, more commonly known as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). This federal statute introduced a 44 hour, seven day work week, established the national minimum wage, guaranteed overtime pay in specific types of jobs at a rate of “time and a half”, and it defines oppressive child labor, which prohibits most employment of minors. The FLSA applies to those employees engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage.
Mr. Wayne Beatty, the plaintiff brought a claim against his former employer Canadian Mill Services Association (CMSA), the defendant is suing for wrongful dismissal and contending he is eligible for increased damages due to the way the dismissal was handled. The damages include an additional 13 months’ notice and for the loss of a number of fringe benefits.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.
2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great
Facts: The employed plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court against her employer, claiming that she was not paid the legally mandated minimum wage. The mandated wage in question being $14.50 proportioned to a 48-hour work that was established through statutory code in 1932. The primary reason for passage of the law was to protect the health and morals of women and children and to create a commission to investigate inadequate wages. The defendant maintained it had the right to refuse payment of the proper wages due because of the supposed invalidity and unconstitutionality of the law under due process. The defendant also put forth the defense that the wages provided by the business
A California worker is suing Crossmark, accusing them of failing to abide by California state law in connection to the payment of overtime wages as well as violations of workers compensation laws. The plaintiff in the case, Irvin Howard, is a retail executive from California. He filed the lawsuit in April 2016 against Crossmark, Inc. He alleged that Crossmark, Inc. failed to provide fair compensation to their employees through overtime payments at rates established by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The plaintiffs believed that the
This implies that the companies that are implicated in the wrong doing were actually in talks with the government long before the lawsuit was filed. This could have been for the purposes of mediation or to determine just how far outside the law the companies were operating.
3. How valid is the company’s argument that the labor agreement with maintenance employees is “beyond the scope of this grievance”?