Legal Opinion
Madison v. Resources for Human Development, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 8, 1999No. Civ.A. 97-7402PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATZ, District Judge.
The plaintiffs, an opt-in class of fourteen current and former employees of defendant Resources for Human Development, Inc. (RHD), claim that RHD underpays its employees for overtime because it does not include bonuses and its contributions to the employees’ benefit plan in the employees’ regular pay rate as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA). Before the court is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 1
The Fair Labor Standards Act is intended to guarantee to employees certain minimum labor standards. See Mitchell v. Robert…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. Borough of West ChesterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dannett Madison, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. Resources for Human Development, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Welding v. Bios CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
- Johnston v. Volunteers of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000