29 U.S.C. § 201
Short title
This chapter may be cited as the “Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10,087
cases (3,123 in the last 5 years), 1912–2026 · leading case: Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (2016)
“The employer seeks to reverse the judgment. It makes two arguments. Both relate to whether it was proper to permit the employees to pursue their claims as a class.”
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)
“Symczyk sued on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees for alleged viola- tions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U. S. C. §201 et seq. In that case, as here, the defendant served the plaintiff with an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 that would have…”
Alden v. Maine (1999)
“1060 , as *712 amended, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp.”
Martinez v. Combs (2010)
“Finding no California case law interpreting the IWC’s definitions of “employ” and “employer” (e.g., Wage Order No. 14, Cal. Code Regs.”
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981)
“1060 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq., after having unsuccessfully submitted a wage claim based on the same underlying facts to a joint grievance committee pursuant to the provisions of his union's collective-bargaining agreement.”
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro (2016)
“The federal statute in question is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., enacted in 1938 to "protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.”
Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983)
“Count III largely was mooted in August 1974 when *427 petitioners began compensation patients for labor pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq. In April 1975 respondents voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit and filed a new two-count complaint.”
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. (2017)
“Such cases "shall be filed under [the enforcement sections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ], as applicable.”
Berger v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (2016)
“Appellants sued Penn, the NCAA, and more than 120 other NCAA Division I member schools (“Appellees”), alleg- ing that student athletes are “employees” within the mean- ing of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 . Accordingly, Appellants contend that the NCAA and its member schools…”
Reynolds v. Bement (2005)
“The DLSE, concerned lest its practice in this regard be called into question, urges that we recognize plaintiff's theory and direct California courts to apply it in private court actions (as the DLSE apparently does in the administrative context) in light of federal cases…”
Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk (2013)
“*69 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., provides that an employee may bring an action to recover damages for specified violations of the Act on behalf of himself and other " similarly situated" employees.”
Debra Dugan v. TGI Friday’s, Inc. (077567) Ernest Bozzi v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC (077567) (Burlington County an (2017)
“In that case, 13 employees of Tyson Foods brought a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201 to 219, claiming that their employer denied them their rightful overtime wages for the time they expended donning and doffing protective equipment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.