Continue for details from the opinion:

In their third amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendant failed to compensate them for time spent engaged in donning and doffing protective equipment (including, for purposes of this motion, protective clothing) and related activities (collectively “donning and doffing activites”). The specific activities for which they allege they were not compensated include: (1) obtaining their required protective equipment from designated areas in the plant; (2) walking to and from the work station, processing line, or both; (3) donning and doffing protective items and hygiene-related equipment before their shift, during their shift, and after their scheduled shift ends; (4) waiting for a shift to begin or for relief to arrive; (5) washing and cleaning tools and other equipment; and (6) other pre- and post-shift activities required by defendant. Plaintiffs seek unpaid back wages, unpaid benefits, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.

The FLSA allows for the commencement of an action for unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay against an employer by “any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.” … In order to determine if the proposed class is similarly situated at this stage of the proceeding, courts must consider: (1) the factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) whether defendant has presented individualized defenses; and (3) fairness and procedural issues presented.  “Variations in damages . . . do not warrant decertification.”

To be sure, trial of a collective action of this type and magnitude is no small undertaking. But other courts have managed similar litigation involving donning and doffing in the meat and poultry processing industry, and objections on this basis are accordingly unfounded. … For these reasons, a collective action would be a fair and efficient means of resolving plaintiffs’ claims, and this third and final factor therefore favors certification. Because he other two factors do as well, defendant’s motion to decertify the conditionally certified class should be denied.

The parent company here, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, is not alone in making large profits even as workers earn less and less.  Our economy, however, cannot start growing again on a sustainable basis unless workers’ wages increase.  The Great Recession shows that families need higher wages to prosper in the long run instead of relying on more and more debt.

Defendant Margaret Swan appeals from an order granting Plaintiff Rebecca Davis joint legal custody and secondary physical custody of Swan’s biological child (“minor child”). Swan argues that the trial court erred by applying the best interest standard to the child custody dispute between the parties. Because the record shows that Swan acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected right to exclusive care and control of the minor child, we affirm the trial court’s decision to apply the best interest of the child standard.

On appeal, Davis was represented by Burton Craige, Narendra Ghosh, and Sharon Thompson of the Sharon Thompson Law Group.

We became involved in the case in 2008.   We obtained documents from the Department of Motor Vehicles, the companies’ bank and their accountant to show how the companies and its owners moved money and assets around.  The jury found that Hersek fraudulently transferred five trucks to the new company; they also found that Diamond H and the owners of the two companies controlled Hersek to the extent that it had no separate corporate identity.  Danny is now entitled to collect his judgment from Diamond H and the individual owners as well as from Hersek.  Danny was represented by Ann Groninger and Paige Kurtz of Sprouse & Kurtz, PLLC.

To be enforceable, a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement must meet five requirements – it must be (1) in writing; (2) made a part of the employment contract; (3) based on valuable consideration; (4) reasonable as to time and territory; and (5) designed to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer.  Restrictions on time and territory are considered together.  “Although either the time or the territory restriction, standing alone, may be reasonable, the combined effect of the two may be unreasonable.  A longer period of time is acceptable where the geographic restriction is relatively small, and vice versa.” “The protection of customer relations against misappropriation by a departing employee is well recognized as a legitimate interest of an employer.”

In this case, MGM Investigations had hired the defendants to perform insurance-related investigations regarding federal contracting work overseas.  The non-compete agreement that had been signed restricted defendants from competing “either directly or indirectly, with MJM in its present line(s) of business or in future line(s) of business” for a period of two years.  The trial court held that this provision was unreasonable because it contained no geographic restriction.  The employer did not appeal this conclusion.

The non-solicitation provision stated that defendants could not “solicit any current or prospect client of MJM for the purposes of providing” insurance-investigation-related services.  The trial court had approved this provision specifically with regard to a list of 800 purported “clients” that had been provided by the employer during the case.  The Court of Appeals reversed this conclusion.

The Court found that the terms “current client” and “prospect client” were both too vague without further definition.  No time period or other restriction determined when a company was a current or prospective client.  Especially problematic too was that the restriction would cover clients or prospects that defendants never had any contact with.  Nor could the trial court save the agreement by specifically listing 800 particular “clients” when it had not verified that these companies were indeed clients and the provision did not have a time limit.  Accordingly, the Court declared the non-solicitation agreement to be invalid.

Judge Steelman concurred in the result, but was more sympathetic to the employer’s position, and would have upheld the non-solicitation provision if the trial court had interpreted it more narrowly.

Of that amount, North Carolina received about $300 million to save teachers’ jobs.  North Carolina leaders are now figuring out when and how to use the money.  Obviously, one possibility would be to use some of the funds to re-hire teachers and teaching assistants who were recently laid off due to budget cuts.  Also, some amount may be saved till next year, when the state’s deficit will reach its highest level.

But, given implacable opposition from the business community on this issue, “a more realistic immediate idea may be the recent British law giving workers the right to request a switch to a part-time or flexible schedule. Employers can still say no, but the establishment of a formal right seems to have made a difference. So far, about 90 percent of requests have been approved.”

In this case, the plaintiff was injured when she slipped on some black ice three feet away from the back door to her office.  The majority affirmed the Industrial Commission’s denial of benefits on the grounds that the plaintiff was hurt while she was still in the parking lot and had not yet reached the door.  Chief Judge Martin dissented.  He concluded that because plaintiff in fact was injured on the curb, which  is separate from the parking lot and right outside the employer’s office door, she was within a “reasonable margin” of the employer-provided access to the building, and thus suffered a compensable injury.

In a rare reversal of a magistrate’s recommended ruling, the District Court Judge agreed with plaintiff’s argument that dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim was inappropriate because the employment agreement might ultimately be unenforceable due to indefiniteness. Specifically, the agreement permitted Roush to unilaterally demote the plaintiff and reduce his pay, which plaintiff argued potentially rendered the agreement too indefinite to be enforceable. In the event the employment agreement was unenforceable, the District Court Judge reasoned that the plaintiff should be able to plead the wrongful discharge claim in the alternative to his breach of contract claim.

The victory is significant from a damages standpoint. While there are damages caps applicable to the Americans with Disabilities Act, there are no such damages caps on compensatory damages under the state law wrongful discharge claim that was restored by the Court’s latest ruling.

Roush has since filed its answer and the parties are poised to begin the discovery process.  Josh Van Kampen is representing the plaintiff in this case.