Not legal advice — for informational purposes only.
OvertimeLaw.ai
HomeAboutCheck EmployerResources
(888) 555-1234Sign inFree Case Check
Resources

Case Law.

Decisions that shape how U.S. wage-and-hour claims are decided today — summarized in plain English, with citations for the record.

  • Federal· 2018

    Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro

    138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) · U.S. Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court held that FLSA exemptions should be given a 'fair reading' rather than construed narrowly, rejecting the long-standing principle that exemptions are read narrowly against employers.

  • Federal· 2014

    Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk

    574 U.S. 27 (2014) · U.S. Supreme Court

    The Court held that post-shift anti-theft security screenings were not compensable under the FLSA because they were not 'integral and indispensable' to the workers' principal activities.

  • Federal· 2016

    Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo

    577 U.S. 442 (2016) · U.S. Supreme Court

    The Court allowed workers to use representative evidence and statistical sampling to prove donning-and-doffing overtime claims in an FLSA collective action.

  • California· 2018

    Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court

    4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) · California Supreme Court

    Adopted the ABC test for determining whether workers are employees or independent contractors under California wage orders. Later codified as AB 5.

Now covering all 50 states + DC — federal and state labor law information

OvertimeLaw.ai provides general legal information, not legal advice. Use of this app does not create an attorney-client relationship.

TermsPrivacy
Edit with