CopyCited 23 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1569, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18908, 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41, 789, 2004 WL 1970052
...that various companies may be an individual’s “integrated employer” where they
have “(i) Common management; (ii) Interrelation between operations; (iii)
Centralized control of labor relations; and (iv) [A] [d]egree of common
ownership/financial control.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2).
Morrison fails to introduce any evidence concerning the first factor.
Regarding the second factor, Morrison’s only argument is that RDV looked to
Amway for advice in restructuring its internal operations....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23749, 2003 WL 23126222
...[3] In response, Plaintiff maintains that Ryder and Credit Union constitute a "joint" or "integrated" employer of Plaintiff. Under a joint employer or integrated employer theory, Ryder and Credit Union, though separate entities, could be deemed to be parts of a single employer for purposes of the FMLA. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(1)....
...933,
6 L.Ed.2d 100 (1961); Aimable,
20 F.3d at 439. To assure the protection of employees, the FMLA's statutory scheme makes it clear that a worker can be economically dependent on, and thus employed by, more than one entity at the same time. See 29 C.F.R. §§
825.104,
825.106....
...determining whether two or more entities constitute an integrated employer: (i) Common management; (ii) Interrelation between operations; (iii) Centralized control of labor relations; and (iv) Degree of common ownership/financial control. 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2)....
...e criterion, but rather the entire relationship is to be viewed in its totality." See id. [5] *1253 In Hukill v. Auto Care, Inc.,
192 F.3d 437 (4th Cir.1999), the Fourth Circuit thoroughly analyzed the integrated employer test set forth in 29 C.F.R. §
825.104(c)(2)....
...See 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(i). The parties agree that Credit Union, standing alone, does not meet this definition. [4] Under these theories, separate entities could be deemed to be parts of a single employer for purposes of the FMLA. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17296, 2016 WL 5219863
...al, or emotional dysfunc-tioning, to the extent that the ability of the person to provide adequately for the person’s own care or protection ' is impaired.” Fla. Stat. §
825.101 (4). Lack of knowledge of the victim’s age is not a defense. Id. §
825.104....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25928, 2003 WL 23784535
...The Department of Labor's "integrated employer" test requires the courts to consider whether two or more employers have: "(1) common management; (2) interrelation between operations; (3) centralized control of labor relations; and (4) degree of common ownership/financial control." Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2))....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 5 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 265, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3637, 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45, 786, 1999 WL 123644
..."employer" as it
is used in the FMLA.
In addition, the applicable Code of Federal Regulation provision indicates that the term "employer"
in the FMLA should be given the same meaning as its counterpart in the FLSA. Specifically, 29 C.F.R. §
825.104, which addresses the issue of "[w]hat employers are covered by the [FMLA]," provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(a) ......
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...oyer” as it is used
in the FMLA.
In addition, the applicable Code of Federal Regulation provision indicates
that the term “employer” in the FMLA should be given the same meaning as its
counterpart in the FLSA. Specifically, 29 C.F.R. § 825.104, which addresses the
8
issue of “[w]hat employers are covered by the [FMLA],” provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(a)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: May 17, 2024
...29 C.F.R.
§ 825.120(a)(4). Both situations would be covered.
We have little doubt that some people and families who
would benefit from FMLA leave are denied its benefits because its
reach and scope is limited. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(a)
(excepting from FMLA altogether almost any employer who
employs fewer than 50 employees)....
