Human resources & employment law cumulative case briefs

The question presented in this case is whether a compensation scheme based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, can be considered a “salary” within the meaning of the pertinent wage and hour laws. We conclude that such a payment schedule is not a salary and, therefore, does not qualify the employee as exempt. Since the trial court found the employee was exempt, we shall reverse.

Gail Kelly, human resources manager for this family business, quit after complaining about an affair between her brother, a vice president of the company, and another employee, alleging the situation created a hostile work environment “permeated by sexual favoritism”:

• 
  her responsibilities and duties were reduced in favor of the “paramour”, who:
  
  • 
    had turned in inaccurate or fabricated timesheets,
    
  • 
    took unlimited vacation time and
    
  • 
    took days off without notifying human resources,
    

• 
  she was retaliated against by both of her brothers because of her complaints.
  

• 
  the alleged activities were not sexual discrimination because they did not amount to “widespread sexual favoritism” and
  
• 
  any alleged discrimination was not based on her gender (edited for ease of reading):
  

Kelly “does not allege that Lawrence and Joyce engaged in sexually explicit behavior or conversations in the office, or that Lawrence took any actions or made any statement[s] that were of a sexual or gender-specific nature that could be perceived as ‘demeaning to women.’ * * * Nothing in the complaint indicates that “sexual discourse displaced standard business procedure in a way that prevented [Kelly] from working in an environment in which she could be evaluated on grounds other than her sexuality.

1. 
   if the inclusion of the clause in the agreement was the product of fraud or overreaching,
   
2. 
   if the party wishing to repudiate the clause would effectively be deprived of his day in court were the clause enforced, and
   
3. 
   if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.
   

The employer insisted on the “choice of forum” provision, and the employee objected. The appellate court ruled in favor of the employee because:

• 
  he presented evidence that:
  
  • 
    he could not afford to travel to Saudi Arabia, and
    
  • 
    he could not obtain a travel visa; and
    
• 
  the court noted that:
  
  • 
    the legal system in Saudi Arabia was not independent and that the employee therefore may not receive a fair trial, and
    
  • 
    there was evidence that the employee was coerced into signing the document.
    

ADA: stroke, impairments, essential functions – physically fit – not mentally fit, reasonable accommodation, no breach of contract, insufficient evidence, summary judgment dismissal affirmed

Mr. Owusu-Ansah now appeals. Following review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

• 
  Rosemary Marsh was a Leasing Consultant with the company until her employment was terminated for poor performance.
  
• 
  She was 61 years old when she was hired, and 63 when her employment was terminated.
  
• 
  Performance was evaluated by anonymous telephone and video evaluations. A score of at least 90 on 100 was expected on the telephone evaluations and at least 80 on the video evaluations.
  
• 
  over the period she worked for the company they were:
  
  • 
    Video: 41 and 56.
    
  • 
    Telephone: 82, 45, 41, 57, 35, 83, 80, 100, 50 and 76.
    
• 
  On the five months of her corrective action plan, she failed to improve her performance.
  

• 
  Alleged statements related made to an employee were not direct evidence of discrimination because they were neither related to her termination nor were they made by the decision-maker who decided to terminate her employment.
  
• 
  Employee failed to show that the employer’s reasons for terminating her, continuing poor performance evaluation scores, and policy violations, were pretext to cover up age discrimination.
  

Title VII: hostile work environment, pervasive – cumulative ostracism and petty mistreatment, summary judgment reversed

• 
  Police officers were given flextime instead of overtime wages as required by the FLSA.
  
• 
  Neither the officers nor the city tracked the accrued flextime.
  

• 
  The officers failed to provide information about the number of uncompensated hours they claimed to have worked or the amount of money they alleged was owed in the pretrial discovery process,.
  
• 
  When the discovery deadline passed, and after the defendants moved for summary judgment, the officers provided affidavits with precise estimations, week by week, of unpaid hours they claimed they had worked.
  
• 
  The district court granted the defendants’ motion to strike the untimely affidavits on the ground that the late production of the affidavits was prejudicial to the defendants because the city’s entire litigation posture might have been different if these numbers had been provided earlier.
  
• 
  Further, noted the trial court, allowing the officers to provide untimely evidence of damages would prolong the litigation by forcing the district court to allow the defendants to:
  
  • 
    re-open discovery and re-depose the officers, which would be unfair to the defendants,
    
  • 
    waste judicial resources, and
    
  • 
    fail to deter future violations of discovery obligations.
    
• 
  The district court then granted defendants’ summary judgment motion because, without the affidavits, the court ruled that the officers could not meet their burden of proving the amount and extent of their alleged overtime work.
  

• 
  No abuse of discretion by the trial court.
  
• 
  Standard of evidentiary proof when the employer has not kept accurate time records:
  
  • 
    The Mt. Clemens “relaxed” standard applies only when the nature and extent of damages is certain.
    
  • 
    Thus is Carmody, the plaintiffs had an initial burden of either:
    
    • 
      going forward to show flextime hours were carried forward into a new work week in violation of the FLSA, or
      
    • 
      that they were entirely unpaid for those hours – a burden they did not satisfy.
      
• 
  Their offer of evidence of the flextime practice, was untimely, and without the untimely affidavits there was no evidence of specific dates and hours worked, or money owed: