Elaine Valerio v. Putnam Associates Incorporated

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 18 FLSA does not require a clear mutual understanding of “how [an employee’s] 19 overtime premiums should be calculated”
• finding that Valerio “understood that the fixed weekly salary was to be compensation for potentially fluctuating weekly hours”
• noting that there is “no common law cause of action where the relevant public policy has already been vindicated by a state or federal statute”
• noting that an employer’s “obligation under the FLSA was extinguished” where the employee received more overtime payment than she was entitled to receive under the FLSA
• affirming a district court’s application of Section 778.114 to calculate overtime damages award in a misclassification case
• affirming grant of summary judgment for defendant on state law retaliation claim where FLSA provided a remedy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).