Reich v. Waldbaum, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.3d 35 · 1995
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Herman v. RSR Security Services Ltd. (1999), Pollis v. New School for Social Research (1997)
7 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 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
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. · China Everbright Trading Co. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc. · Brock v. Superior Care, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Plaintiff] regularly receive[d] each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of [his] compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.... [A]n exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. Exempt employees need not be paid for any workweek in which they perform no work.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ramirez v. Rifkin“[T]o prove a willful violation of the FLSA within the meaning of § 255(a), it must be established that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute.”
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.