Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland’s Empirical Analysis
661 F.3d 587 · 2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 8 U.S.C. § 1188 (§ 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Monge v. California · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
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.
“"wages" [under 29 U.S.C. § 206 ] cannot be considered to have been paid by the employer and received by the employee unless they are paid finally and unconditionally or "free and clear." The wage requirements of the Act will not be met where the employee "kicks-back" directly or indirectly to the employer or to another person for the employer's benefit the whole or part of the wage delivered to the employee. This is true whether the "kick-back" is made in cash or in other than cash. For example, if it is a requirement of the employer that the employee must provide tools of the trade which will be used in or are specifically required for the performance of the employer's particular work, there would be a violation of the Act in any workweek when the cost of such tools purchased by the employee cuts into the minimum or overtime wages required to be paid him under the Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'tend[s] to shift part of the employer's business expense to the employees.' " Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland , 661 F.3d 587 , 594-95 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayhue's Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Hodgson , 464 F.2d 1196 , 1199 (5th Cir. 1972) ). In fact, Ramos-Barrientos applies the "primarily benefits”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“found by the Administrator to be primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer will not be recognized as reasonable and may not therefore be included in computing wages. 29 C.F.R. § 531.3 (d)(1) (emphasis added). Section 531.32 likewise uses the”
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.