CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 463578
...Jordan, II, P.A., Clermont, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. PLEUS, J. Nine hourly employees ("the Employees") of the Quaker Oats' Gatorade factory in Kissimmee sued their employer in a three-count complaint seeking overtime wages. Count I alleged a violation of section 448.01 claiming overtime pay for work in excess of ten hours per day....
...[1] Quaker Oats is appealing the final judgment entered in favor of the Employees for a total of $103,831.09, as well as a subsequent judgment awarding them $212,520 in attorney's fees. The Employees cross appeal a directed verdict on their statutory wage claim brought under section 448.01. We deal with the statutory wage claim first. Section 448.01, Florida Statutes (1997) provides: (1) Ten hours of labor shall be a legal day's work, and when any person employed to perform manual labor of any kind by the day, week, month or year renders 10 hours of labor, he or she shall be consi...
CopyCited 10 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33094, 2006 WL 1366737
...Accordingly, Plaintiffs' minimum wage claims fail. D. Unpaid Wages (Counts IV, VII, X) Plaintiffs also assert novel claims for unpaid wages under Florida law. They claim that they are entitled to additional compensation for each hour worked at a work party in excess of ten hours. Section 448.01, Fla....
...Here, however, because the two inquiries are inextricably linked, i.e., the right to "extra *1311 pay" is indistinguishable from the remedy for an employer's failure to provide "extra pay", the undersigned focuses exclusively upon the vagueness inquiry and does not reach the question of whether Fla. Stat. § 448.01 would otherwise provide a private right of action....
...2294,
33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)(footnotes, internal quotations omitted). It is well-established, however, that the degree of vagueness that the Constitution will tolerate, and the level of judicial scrutiny of a legislative enactment, depends largely upon the nature of the enactment in question. Section
448.01, Fla....
...Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,
455 U.S. 489, 498,
102 S.Ct. 1186,
71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); (2) it does not impose criminal penalties, id. at 499,
102 S.Ct. 1186; and (3) it does not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights. Id. Moreover, because Fla. Stat. §
448.01 does not infringe upon First Amendment rights, the Court may only consider Defendant's vagueness challenge *1312 in light of the facts currently before the Court....
...use a business "may have the ability to clarify the meaning of the regulation by its own inquiry, or by resort to an administrative process." " Flipside,
455 U.S. at 498,
102 S.Ct. 1186. Notwithstanding the deferential standard of review, Fla. Stat. §
448.01 still does not pass muster. Section
448.01, Fla....
...Is "extra pay" the average hourly wage when the statute was enacted in 1874, is it the "market rate" for employees performing similar tasks in the same geographic area, is it the federal minimum wage, a measurement that did not come into existence until 64 years after Fla. Stat. § 448.01 was passed? The rhetorical query demonstrates just how far the Court must reach to give content to the statute. [31] A different question would be presented if Fla. Stat. § 448.01 had been subject to judicial and/or administrative interpretations limiting or interpreting it....
...Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell,
425 U.S. 610, 622,
96 S.Ct. 1755,
48 L.Ed.2d 243 (1976)(citing Smith v. Goguen,
415 U.S. 566, 575,
94 S.Ct. 1242,
39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974)). With the exception of Quaker Oats, a case whose holding is not pertinent to this case, Fla. Stat. §
448.01 has not been the subject of any judicial interpretation in over 130 years. Moreover, no administrative agency has cured the statute's defects. Quite to the contrary, According to the Florida Department of Labor, the term "manual labor" in §
448.01(2) has never been defined by administrative or judicial decision....
...n what constitutes "manual labor," and what constitutes "extra pay," and Plaintiffs have not suggested any potential instructions or applicable standards that could serve to cure the vagueness of this little, to never-applied law. Because Fla. Stat. § 448.01 is "so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all," the Court cannot allow a jury to find Eckerd liable for allegedly violating its proscriptions (whatever they may be)....
