Gallagher v. Lackawanna County

3 Citing cases

  1. Wintjen v. Denny's, Inc.

    2:19-CV-00069-CCW (W.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2024)

    Further, since the issue of whether Denny's violation of the FLSA was willful will be left to the jury, so too should the issue of whether Denny's acted in good faith. Gallagher v. Lackawanna Cnty., No. 3:cv-07-0912, 2010 WL 1342922, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010) (denying motion for summary judgment on the issue of liquidated damages where a dispute remained as to whether employer's violation was willful); Karali v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., Civ. A. No. 16-02093, 2018 WL 4676073, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2018) (“a ‘finding that the employer willfully violated the FLSA necessarily precludes the Court from finding that the employer acted in good faith'”)

  2. Rapczynski v. Directv, LLC

    3:14-CV-2441 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Facts regarding willfulness must be explored during discovery, and the [Defendants] may challenge the three-year statute of limitations at a later date." Gallagher v. Lackawanna, No. 3:07-cv-0912, 2008 WL 9375549, at *9 (quoting Resendiz-Ramirez v. P & H Forestry, LLC, 515 F. Supp.2d 937, 942 (W.D. Ark. 2007)) (internal citation omitted); Alston, et al. v. DIRECTV, No. 3:14-cv-04093, 2015 WL 2451219, at *4 (D.S.C. May 22, 2015) (denying DIRECTV and MasTec's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' FLSA claims for having been filed outside the statute of limitations where "[f]urther facts relevant to the nature of the employment and work relationships, and alleged willfulness will likely be elicited during the course of discovery."); see also Pignataro v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 593 F.3d 265, 273 (3d Cir. 2010) ("Whether a violation of the FLSA is willful is a question of fact that is reviewed for clear error."). Therefore, at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiffs' allegations in the Amended Complaint that "Defendants' FLSA violations were willful and undertaken with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions" (Doc. 18, ¶ 58), and the accompanying factual allegations in the Amended Complain

  3. Taylor v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.

    Case No. 12-2697-JWL (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Referring to it as a "pure gap time" claim

    See, e.g., Espenscheid, 2011 WL 10069108, at *11 (if an employee's average wage exceeds the legal minimum, then no minimum wage violation has occurred); Brown, 2011 WL 741254, at *5 (following the "weight of authority" that the FLSA does not provide a remedy for workers who have received at least the minimum wage for a pay period in which they have not worked overtime) (collecting cases); Thrower, 2010 WL 4536997, at *5 (employers not obligated under the FLSA to compensate employees for gap time as long as employees receive at least the statutory minimum wage for all nonovertime hours worked); Wright, 2010 WL 3328015, at *7 (as a matter of law, plaintiffs have no stand-alone claim for straight time compensation); Gallagher v. Lackawanna County, 2010 WL 1342922, at *12 (M.D. Pa. March 31, 2010) ("The logic of Monahan is straightforward and unassailable"); Farris v. County of Riverside, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1161 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (agreeing with the "majority rule" that the FLSA does not allow for recovery under a gap time theory; no violation is established if an employee's wages divided by the total number of hours worked is above the FLSA's minimum wage requirements); Braddock v. Madison County, 34 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1112 (S.D. Ind. 1998) (plaintiffs not entitled to additional compensation under the FLSA for "gap time" hours); Carter v. City of Charleston, 995 F. Supp. 620, 621 (D.S.C. 1997) (employee cannot succeed on a claim under the FLSA if his average wage for a period in which he works no overtime exceeds the federal minimum wage).