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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 10

Seventh Circuit affirms application of fluctuating workweek limitation on overtime liability

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 18 2010

The Seventh Circuit recently held that the fluctuating workweek method can, at least in certain circumstances, be applied to calculate a successful plaintiff's damages in an overtime case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act

California appellate court sends mixed signals in affirming denial of class certification.

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2011

The Second Appellate District in California recently affirmed a trial court's refusal to certify a class of store managers in Mora, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.pdf., Case No. B221949 (April 18, 2011

If at first you don't succeed....your "plan b" will probably fail, too.

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2011

Having already struck out on a curveball they thought was a fastball over the middle of the plate, Schering Corp. is now 0 for 2 following the latest ruling from the Connecticut federal district court in Kuzinski et al. v. Schering Corp.pdf., Case No. 3:07-cv-0233-JBA (D. Conn. August 5, 2011

Too big to succeed - are class actions a proper procedural tool or a means to coerce settlements and enrich a few?

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 7 2011

In the wake of the oral argument in the mega class action, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, The New York Times ran an interesting April 3, 2011 article by Adam Liptak entitled “When a Lawsuit Is Too Big.”

NLRB holds class action waivers violate National Labor Relations Act: what's next?

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 23 2012

In the much anticipated ruling in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184, released Friday, January 6th, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") held that the respondent employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") by "requiring employees to waive their right to collectively pursue employment-related claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial."

Inadvertent ESI disclosure of attorney-client communication waives privilege in FLSA collective action

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 1 2012

ESI has become one of the most despised three-letter combinations in corporate America (and the lawyers who dutifully serve it

California Supreme Court's Harris decision may become a helpful tool in defeating class certification--or maybe it won't

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 4 2012

After several years of waiting, the California Supreme Court handed down its long-anticipated decision in Harris v. Superior Court last week

Ninth Circuit denies Rule 23 class certification based on actual duties

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2012

Is the GOP slipping something into the water supply in San Francisco?

Conditional certification of assistant manager overtime class denied.....for now

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2012

Perhaps it's a tad unrealistic, but here's hoping that John Calipari's one-and-done recruiting strategies start influencing FLSA jurisprudence now that he's finally won a national championship

In through the out door: Third Circuit says FLSA collective actions not incompatible with Rule 23 state law class actions

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 2 2012

In a decision that will thrill readers of all ages with its scintillating recitation of the Portal-to-Portal Act's legislative history, the Third Circuit has held that there is no inherent incompatibility between the opt-in mechanism of Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (that's 29 U.S.C. 216(b) for those of you keeping score at home) and the opt-out mechanism required by Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure