Legal Opinion
Pabst v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided September 20, 2000No. 99-6108, 99-6150PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
We again explore the question of when “on-call” time becomes sufficiently onerous to render it compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Surveying our precedents and applying them to the facts of this case, we conclude that plaintiffs’ on-call duties requiring them to continually monitor automated alarms by pager and computer were compensable un der the FLSA. In so holding, we reject the argument that on-call monitoring time is not compensable unless contemporaneously reported to the employer as overtime. Further, we uphold the district court’s…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Armour & Co. v. WantockSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Jerry S. Davis, and James O. Slice and Jack L. Pforr v. Food LionCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- Towerridge, Inc., Sued as United States of America for the Benefit of Towerridge, Inc., and v. T.A.O., Inc., and Mid-Continent Casualty Co., AndCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Margaret White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- John Doe, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Bull v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Kellogg v. Energy Safety Services Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Jonites v. Exelon Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.