Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 22, 2017No. 1437 WDA 2016; No. 92 WDA 2017Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION BY
SOLANO, J.:
The lead opinion provides an insightful analysis of the complex and difficult issues presented by this case. In my view, however, the parties have presented questions under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (PMWA), 43 P.S. §§ 333.101 to 333.115, that should not be decided by the courts in the first instance.
The governing statute, which requires payment for overtime “as prescribed in regulations promulgated by'the [Secretary [of Labor and Industry],” PMWA § 4(c), 48 P.S. § 333.104(c), commits questions regarding the appropriate way to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. MisselSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Elkin v. Bell Tel. Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Charlie, A. v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Cerutti v. FRITO LAY, INC.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Verderame v. Radioshack Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.