green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
61.0 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Forbes v. Britt's Bow Wow Boutique, Inc
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the cases must be rare where prohibited work can be done . . . and knowledge or the consequences of knowledge avoided.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Richardson v. Alliance Residential Company
the reason an employee continues to work beyond his shift is immaterial; if the employer knows or has reason to believe that the employee continues to work, the additional hours must be counted.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kramer v. American Bank and Trust Company
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
n reviewing the extent of an employer's awareness, a court need only inquire whether the circumstances . . . were such that the employer either had knowledge or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Margaret White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Co.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
there is no indication in the record that the department did anything . . . to discourage the overtime required by the vast majority of its officers to properly perform their duties other than to promulgate its policy against such work.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Margaret White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Co.
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
there is no indication in the record that the department did anything . . . to discourage the overtime required by the vast majority of its officers to properly perform their duties other than to promulgate its policy against such work.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven Guenther v. Fort Wayne Dough Co., LLC, et al.
Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1083 (11th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sean Doyle, et al. v. Federal Express Corporation, successor by merger to FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.; Calvin Aleyn, et al. v. Federal Express Corporation
“In reviewing the extent of an employer’s awareness, a court ‘need only inquire whether the circumstances . . . were such that the employer either had knowledge [of overtime hours being worked] or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.’” Id. at 103-04 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Reich v. Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chavez-Derember v. Jerry's Caring Hands, Inc.
Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that “[a]n employer ‘does not rid himself of that duty because the extent of the business may preclude his personal supervision[] and compel reliance on subordinates’”); Mumbower v. Callicott, 526 F.2d 1183, 1188 (8th Cir. 1975) (noting that an employer “who wishes no such work to be done has a duty to see it is not performed” and it “cannot accept the benefits without including the extra hours in the employee’s weekly total for purposes of overtime compensation”); Wirtz v. Bledsoe, 365 F.2d 277, 278 (10th …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Micone v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (MAG2)
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gulf King Shrimp, 407 F.2d at 512 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lutz v. Froedtert Health Inc
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Melanie Nicole Moore v. Pooches of Largo, Inc.
(2×)
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1084 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 , 108 S. Ct. 1677, 1681 (1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wanjohi v. Pioneer Investment & Development
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Forbes v. Britt's Bow Wow Boutique, Inc
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (11th Cir. 1994); 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wanjohi v. Pioneer Investment & Development
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. Outokumpu Stainless Steel USA, LLC
(2×)
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 )).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buckley v. S.W.O.R.N. Protection LLC
Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oswald v. Diggs
Because the Amended Complaint does not allege that Oswald’s resignation stemmed from deceit, material misrepresentation, coercion, or duress, his termination was voluntary.6 Under the allegations of his Amended Complaint, Oswald’s resignation was not caused by state action and cannot 6 “The question of whether coercion or misrepresentation is present is a legal one.” Hargray, 57 F.3d at 1567 n.6 (citing Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation and Natural Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ko v. K Stones, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scalia v. Beleco, Inc.
“In reviewing the extent of an employer’s awareness, a court ‘need only inquire whether the circumstances . . . were such that the employer either had knowledge [of overtime hours being worked] or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.’” Id. at 103-04 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Reich v. Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Minor v. Central Forest Products Inc
See, e.g., 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 4.14 (2020); Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 , 1277 n.68 (11th Cir. 2008); Reich v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (11th Cir. 1994); 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DIERDORF v. ADVANCED MOTION THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE, INC.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gohn v. EB LLC
Res., St. of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Macleroy v. City of Childersburg
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
STEWART v. CITY OF GREENSBORO GEORGIA
On the contrary, Stewart testified that Chief Mapp required him to work the 95 Alvarez Perez, 515 F.3d at 1162-63 (citing McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 (1988)). 96 See, e.g., Davis v. Friendly Express, Inc., 61 F. App’x 671 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“Generally, a FLSA Plaintiff carries the burden of proving all elements of a FLSA claim.”). 97 29 U.S.C. § 203 (g). 98 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 . 99 Reich v. Dept. of Conservation & Nat’l Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 ). 100 29 C.F.R. § 785.13 . overtime and specifically in…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richardson v. Alliance Residential Company
Res., St. of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1083-84 (11th Cir. 1994) (police department had constructive knowledge of overtime where it “specifically instructed its supervisors to closely monitor the officers’ hours to ensure compliance with the [department’s] policy”); Meadows v. NCR Corp., 16CV6221, 2017 WL 5192009 , at *9 (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maria Espinoza v. Fred Meyer
Given the total absence of any argument establishing that a federal court would impute 16 While the janitors cited to federal cases wherein the court imputed knowledge to an employee’s direct employer, see, ~.g.., Reich v. Dept of Conserv., 28 F.3d 1076, 1083-84 (11th Cir. 1994), they did not identify any federal cases where a putative joint employer was found to have knowledge of wage law violations through inquiry notice.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Harrison v. Niehus
Phillips, 477 28 F.3d at 1076 (backward-looking denial of access claim must show loss of a non-frivolous claim, 1 official acts frustrating the litigation, and a remedy that may be awarded which is not available in a 2 future suit).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanley v. Quality Caregivers Solution Services LLC
“In reviewing the extent of an employer’s awareness, a court need only inquire whether the circumstances … were such that the employer either had knowledge [of overtime hours being worked] or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.” Reich v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotes omitted, emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amponsah v. DirecTV, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted and alterations adopted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey Allen v. City of Chicago
But White’s list of example cases included Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1083-84 (11th Cir. 1994), which the White court characterized as a case in which the “employer had constructive knowledge.” 699 F.3d at 876 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Murray v. Birmingham Board of Education
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (citing C.F.R. § 785.11).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingram v. Passmore
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Res., St. of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Black v. Reynolds
As the defendants note, (Doc. 70 at 22), “a court need only inquire whether the circumstances .., were such that the employer either had knowledge [of overtime hours being worked] or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.” Reich v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (emphasis in original, internal quotes omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Del Rosario v. Labor Ready Southeast, Inc.
“Courts have interpreted this to mean that a FLSA plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he or she worked overtime without compensation and (2) the [defendant] knew or should have known of the overtime work.” Id. at.1314-15 (citing Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation and Natural Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vitali v. Reit Management & Research, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In other words: “In reviewing the extent of an employer’s awareness, a court *104 ‘need only inquire whether the circumstances . . . were such that the employer either had knowledge [of overtime hours being worked] or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.’ ” Reich v. Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994), quoting from Gulf King Shrimp Co. v. Wirtz, supra. To the extent that an employee has reported his hours in accordance with the employer’s mandated timekeeping procedures, the employer’s knowledg…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. FleetCor Technologies Operating Co.
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 786.11 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Willoughby v. Youth Villages, Inc.
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brantley v. Ferrell Electric, Inc.
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (11th Cir.1994)). a.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santonias Bailey v. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc.
Cf. Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (“The cases must be rare where prohibited work can be done and knowledge or the consequences of knowledge avoided.” (alteration adopted) (quoting Gulf King Shrimp Co. v. Wirtz, 407 F.2d 508, 512 (5th Cir.1969))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blakes v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Butler v. DirectSat USA, LLC
Mar. 4, 2005) (quoting Holzapfel for the same principle); Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (noting that “a court need only inquire whether the circumstances ... were such that the employer either had knowledge [of overtime hours being worked] or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge” (citation omitted; alternations and emphasis in original)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gulick v. City of Pittston
Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Huddleston v. Sunshine Mills, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
An employee is “suffered or permitted to work” if “(1) he or she worked overtime without compensation and (2) the [employer] knew or should have known of the overtime work.” Allen v. Board of Public Education for Bibb County, 495 F.3d 1306, 1314-15 (11th Cir.2007) (citing Reich v. Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (11th Cir.1994); 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 ) (alteration supplied). 89 It is not relevant that the employer did not ask the employee to do the work.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oyarzo v. Tuolumne Fire District
Dec. 11, 2007) (citing Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (“An employer’s knowledge of overtime hours worked is measured in accordance with his duty to inquire into the conditions prevailing in his business.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Ojeda-Sanchez v. Carmelo Hernandez-Rubio
(2×)
Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation and Natural Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1084 (11th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brubach v. City of Albuquerque
To meet the actual or constructive knowledge standard, the Court need only inquire whether the employer had the “opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.” Reich v. U.S. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See 29 U.S.C. § 203 (g) (“ ‘Employ’ includes to suffer or permit to work.”); Reich, 28 F.3d at 1082 (“[A]n employer’s knowledge is measured in accordance with his duty ... to inquire into the conditions prevailing in his business .... [A] court need only inquire whether ... [the employer] had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 (“The employer knows or has reason to believe that he is continuing to work.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hawkins v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
See 29 C.F.R. § 785.13 ; Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1083 (11th Cir.1994) (given the employer’s “specific knowledge that the ... policy against overtime was not being followed, [it] had a duty to do more than to simply continue to apprise the officers of the policy”; rather, it “had an obligation to exercise its control and see that the work [was] not performed if it [did] not want it to be performed”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Mumbower v. Callicott, 526 F.2d 1183, 1188 (8th Cir.1975) (“The employer who wishes no such wor…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sandoz v. CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC
Allen v. Board of Public Educ. for Bibb County, 495 F.3d 1306, 1319 (11th Cir.2007); Reich v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994); American Federation of State, County and Mun.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brennan v. Qwest Communications International, Inc.
Instead, "[t]he reason an employee continues to work beyond his shift is immaterial; if the employer knows or has reason to believe that the employee continues to work, the additional hours must be counted.” Reich v. Dep't of Conservation & Natural Res., 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.11 ); Allen v. Bd. of Pub.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David E. ELLIOTT, Jr., an Incapacitated Adult by and Through His Guardian, Barbara
v.
ELLIOTT, Barbara v. Elliott, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
v.
ELLIOTT, Barbara v. Elliott, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
93-8027.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 28, 1994.
H. Randolph Aderhold, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, GA, Vicki Raines Crowell, Department of the Army, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Benning, GA, Lowell Y. Sturgill, Jr., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Robert S. Greenspan, Washington, DC, for appellant., Paul Van Kilpatrick, Max Reginald McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Columbus, GA, Wade H. Tomlinson, III, Pope, McGlam-ry, Kilpatrick & Morrison, Michael L. McGlamry, Steven W. Saccoecia, Atlanta, GA, for appellee.
Tjoflat, Kravitch, Hatchett, Anderson, Edmondson, Cox, Birch, Dubina, Black, Carnes, Barkett.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion February 15, 1994, 11th Cir., 1994, 13 F.3d 1555)
July 28, 1994.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. * BY THE COURT:A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges of this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en bane,
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.