Glass v. Kellogg Co. Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers Pension Plan

How courts have described this case

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

• analyzing whether defendants “qualify as employers under the FLSA and NYLL together, using the FLSA standard, because any difference between the two definitions would be immaterial”
• finding predominance requirement was satisfied were individualized damages issues involved “straightforward, mechanical” calculations
• finding predominance requirement satisfied where individualized-damages issues involved “straightforward, mechanical” calculations
• restaurant employees, as named plaintiffs, did not have conflict of interest with proposed collective members who were former bussers and runners preventing certification
• “[A] class action is superior where, as here, potential class members are aggrieved by the same policy, the damages suffered are small in relation to the expense and burden of individual litigation, and many potential class members are currently employed by the defendants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).