279 F. App'x 590 - Fowler v. Incor’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 260 · 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (§ 804 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Christensen v. Harris County
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our use of ‘clear and affirmative evidence,’ [citing Arnold, supra ] has lead [sic] to confusion whether this in fact means clear and convincing evidence — a burden beyond the preponderance of evidence standard traditionally applied in civil cases. This is not the case; instead, clear and affirmative evidence is simply an ‘invocation of the familiar principle of statutory interpretation that exemptions from a statute that creates remedies that should be construed narrowly,’ Yi v. Sterling Collision Centers, Inc., 480 F.3d 505 , 508 (7th Cir.2007), and “also that the burden of proof is on the [employer], since entitlement to an exemption is an affirmative defense.” Id. at 507 . “[A] silent or ambiguous record” is not affirmative evidence. United States v. Bush, 405 F.3d 909 , 921 (10th Cir.2005).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o avoid liquidated damages, an employer bears the burden to show that 'to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of [the FLSA].' " Doc. 488, p. 48. In doing so, Plaintiffs are attempting to mislead the Court. Fowler clearly states "[a]lthough a standard of willfulness applies to both liquidated damages and the statute of limitations under the FLSA, the definitions and burdens of proof differ for each.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he employee bears the burden of proving that the employer acted willfully”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.