We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Martha J. Keon Littler Mendelson

Results 1 to 5 of 5



Pennsylvania federal court denies conditional certification in two cases finding no common proof *

USA - May 6 2014
In Banks v. RadioShack Corporation, three sales associates filed a putative collective action alleging that the Philadelphia area district manager…


U.S. Supreme Court tackles Rule 68 offers of judgment made to a lead plaintiff in an FLSA collective action *

USA - April 22 2013
Last week, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Genesis HealthCare Corporation v. Symczyk, that if the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim of a…

Co-authors: William J. Simmons .


The Third Circuit sets forth new test for joint-employer status under the FLSA *

USA - July 12 2012
The Third Circuit recently elaborated on the test for joint-employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the context of a parent company providing shared services to its subsidiaries in In re: Enterprise Rent-a-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13229 (3d Cir. June 28, 2012).

Co-authors: Matthew Hank.


Third Circuit explains joint employer status under FLSA on "significant control" over essential terms and conditions of employment *

USA - July 9 2012
The Third Circuit recently clarified the test for joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the context of a holding company providing shared services to its subsidiaries in In re: Enterprise Rent-a-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13229 (3d Cir. June 28, 2012).


The Fourth Circuit holds that intra-company complaints are protected activity under the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision *

USA - February 13 2012
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that an employer may not: “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the Act], or has testified or is about to testify in such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.”