Handler v. Thrasher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is too well settled to admit of discussion that a contract which has for its purpose, or which has the effect of circumventing or invading the command of the Wage and Hour Act, is invalid and unenforceable.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burry v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. · Wirtz v. William H. LaDew of Louisiana, Inc.

2. ““An employee who brings suit under § 16 (b) of the Act for unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation, together with liquidated damages, has the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated. The remedial nature of this statute and the great public policy which it embodies, however, militate against making that burden an impossible hurdle for the employee. Due regard must be given to the fact that it is the employer who has the duty under § 11(c) of the Act to keep proper records of wages, hours and other conditions and practices of employment and who is in position to know and to produce the most probative facts concerning-the na ture and amount of work performed. •» * * “* * * [W]here the employ- ' er’s records are inaccurate or inadequate and the employee cannot offer convincing substitutes a more difficult problem arises. The solution, however, is not to penalize the employee by denying him any recovery on the ground that he is unable to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work. Such a result would place a premium on an employer’s failure to keep proper records in conformity with his statutory duty; it would allow the employer to keep the benefits of an employee’s labors without paying due compensation as contemplated by the Fair Labor Standards Act. In such a situation we hold that an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he ‘was improperly compensated and if he p”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. De Rose v. Eastern Plastics, Inc. · 184 F. Supp. 886 - Mitchell v. Stewart Brothers Construction Company

3. ““I find that the Defendants Tower Life Building and Tower Life Insurance Company were a single establishment enterprise on the dates in question and that such enterprise had two or more employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and had annual gross volume of sales of not less than $1,000,000. “I find that the Plaintiffs employed as maids and janitors by the Tower Life Building were covered by the 1961 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. “The Court is satisfied that the Act or omission giving rise to this action was in good faith and that the Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing that its act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended and therefore finds that no liquidated damages should be awarded Plaintiffs. “I find that the Statute of Limitations was tolled by the filing of the original complaint on November 7, 1967. “I find that the attorneys are entitled to maintain this suit on behalf of the Plaintiffs. “I conclude that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover such sums as they may be able to establish as owing to them as unpaid minimum wages and overtime payments, if any, due, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended and in force at the relevant times. “I conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover liquidated damages against the Defendants.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Montalvo v. Tower Life Building