Eighth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Must Provide Evidence of Actual Damages Even when Employer Doesn't Keep Accurate Time Records
By Matthew Hank
.jpg)
In Carmody v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the standard of proof in a wage and hour case when an employer fails to maintain accurate timekeeping records. The court held that, even under the “relaxed standard” established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., plaintiffs in a wage and hour case must still provide evidence of actual damages.
Carmody involved a group of police officers who sued the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, claiming they were given flextime instead of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Neither the officers nor the city tracked the accrued flextime. In response to discovery requests, the officers failed to provide information about the number of uncompensated hours they claimed to have worked or the amount of money they alleged was owed. Only after the close of discovery, and after the defendants moved for summary judgment, did the officers come forth with evidence of damages: the officers’ affidavits containing precise estimations, week by week, of unpaid hours worked.
Continue Reading....jpg)
On February 19, 2013, in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court 
In a case that explicitly acknowledges a consequential circuit split, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that the time that an employee spends walking from the locker room to his work station after changing into work clothes is not compensable if the applicable collective bargaining agreement does not require compensation for the time spent changing clothes. 
In a matter of significance for California employers, in See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego, the California Supreme Court 
In a recent “off-the-clock” case, the 
“It’s not what you wear—it’s how you take it off,” an anonymous author exclaimed. Whether employees must be paid for taking off and putting on a variety of items, from aprons to mesh gloves, continues to spark controversy. In the latest pronouncement on the subject, in 
On May 9, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the launch of its first smartphone application, an electronic timesheet employees can use to track their hours of work, including breaks. According to a 
On January 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court created more uncertainty regarding meal and rest period obligations in California by 
There is good news for New Jersey employers who utilize rounding. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development has reconsidered its 
In a significant victory for Massachusetts healthcare employers, on December 20, 2010, the Massachusetts federal court applied the state overtime exemption available to hospitals, nursing homes, and certain other healthcare employers, and dismissed all 13 state wage-law claims in Cavallaro v.UMass Memorial Health Care. Plaintiffs in the case, a class action filed on behalf of 13,000 current and former employees of UMass Healthcare and its subsidiaries, claimed the hospital did not compensate them for time worked: (1) during meal breaks that were automatically deducted from wages; (2) before and after scheduled shifts; and (3) time spent in training sessions. To learn more about the Cavallaro decision and its implications for employers, please 
A California federal court gave final approval to a $2.91 million settlement between Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and approximately 500 information technology employees who alleged they were misclassified as exempt under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, and denied overtime for working through meal periods and working in excess of 40 hours per week, 8 hours per day or on the 7th consecutive day of a workweek. To learn more about the case, please .jpg)
A California Court of Appeal has upped the ante in the ongoing legal debate concerning .jpg)
The United States Supreme Court recently declined to accept review of the decision in .jpg)
Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides that time spent changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of the workday may be excluded from hours worked pursuant to the terms of, or custom or practice under a collective bargaining agreement. Many states impose their own wage and hour requirements, however. In 
.jpg)
On May 19, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor 
For those of you following the Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc. case, on May 12, the California Supreme Court 
As we 
In a case of great significance to public employers, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision holding that the time spent putting on and taking off required uniforms and gear does not constitute compensable work for police officers. In 
The Ninth Circuit recently re-issued an opinion that illustrates the many work-time issues raised when employees commute between home and service sites in company vehicles. 
Several new wage and hour bills made it through various state legislatures during the second half of the year. Below is a wrap up of some new developments (including regulatory updates) from July 1st through December 31st. Click 
In a putative class action pending in the Northern District of California filed by Catherine Sullivan against Kelly Services, Inc. (Case No. C 08-3893 CW), Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in a summary judgment motion that the time spent interviewing by Kelly Services' employees seeking temporary work assignments with Kelly Services' clients is compensable under California law. However, Judge Wilken also ruled that the time spent preparing for and commuting to the client interviews was not compensable, and that Kelly Services was not required to reimburse the employees for expenses incurred in attending the interviews. Judge Wilken found that under the facts of this case, the employees were "subject to the control" of Kelly Services and that Kelly Services "suffered or permitted" the employees to work in connection with the interviews. She rejected the defense argument that the client interviews were "voluntary," finding that the failure to interview would prevent the employee from being considered for 50% of the job assignments . She also rejected the defense argument that the interviews were not time worked as the employees were not employed in between work assignments, finding this latter argument inconsistent with the position taken by the employer in a prior action between the parties.