Legal Opinion

Foster v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 27, 2012No. Civil Action No. 09-453PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CATHY BISSOON, District Judge.

I. MEMORANDUM

For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) will be denied, and the Court holds that payment of overtime under the fluctuating workweek method, at one-half times an employee’s “regular” or “basic” rate, as opposed to one and one-half times (or more), is impermissible under 34 Pa.Code § 231.43(d)(3). The remainder of the parties’ Motions (see Does. 52, 54, 70, 71 & 73) will be resolved as described below.

A. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45)

1. The Fluctuating Workweek Under the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. MisselSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
  4. Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  5. Tasker v. DHL Retirement Savings PlanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Verderame v. Radioshack Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Poe v. IESI MD CorporationCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2019
  4. Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County2014
  5. Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API