Board of Park Commissioners v. Donahue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the use of a cell phone “not for communication between states [] is strictly an intrastate activity” even though “it utilizes interstate technology”
• granting summary judgment where Plaintiff did not cite evidence that the restaurant had gross sales of more than $500,000
• explaining that coverage extends to plaintiffs who work “‘in activities so closely related to . . . commerce, as to be considered a part of it,’ e.g., regular[] use [of] the mails, telephone or telegraph for interstate communication” (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 779.103
• analyzing whether individual coverage applies based on an employee’s engagement in commerce rather than the employee’s production of goods for commerce, because the latter was indisputably inapplicable
• declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing FLSA claims
• restaurant employee who only made deliveries intrastate was not individually covered

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).