City of Georgetown v. Groff

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that entities were a single integrated enterprise where employees worked across multiple locations and the owner employed common hiring and payment practices
• noting that in FLSA cases with modest class composition, it is easier to impute a plaintiff’s own experience to other employees
• noting that a plaintiffs lack of direct knowledge about policies at related restaurants “does not prevent him from meeting his minimal burden with circumstantial evidence — such as a corporate structure tending to suggest common ownership and control”
• finding that plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded that defendants operated as a single integrated enterprise in alleging that one man owned, managed, and oversaw all operations at each restaurant at issue, and plaintiff worked at three of the locations
• finding sufficient factual allegations of: (1) “interrelated operations” based on shared “website, décor, menus, and uniforms;” (2) common management, ownership and financial control based on single common owner; and (3
• applying single-integrated-enterprise test, while noting that defendants never challenged the application of the test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).