Daniel Lee Vanskike v. Howard A. Peters, III

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 ordinary economic reality test did not make sense where the relationship did “not stem from any remunerative relationship or bargained-for exchange of labor for consideration”
• noting that employee status under the FLSA “depends on the totality of circumstances rather than on any technical label”
• concluding FLSA does not apply to “prisoners who are assigned to work within the prison walls for the prison”
• noting that “words have meaning in context, and it is rare that statutory terms may be responsibly applied without any consideration whatsoever of the statutory context and purposes”
• affirming the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss because plaintiffs had failed to establish the existence of an employment relationship
• stating that prison work assignments are part ofthe inmates' sentences of incarceration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).