Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an employee’s dubious testimony of her employer’s control jeopardized only her adequacy with respect to claims that required her employer’s control as a “key factor,” but not to claims for which control was irrelevant
• noting § 785.27 determines \whether the training time should be counted as working time\
• “There is ‘inadequacy only where the representative’s credibility is questioned on issues directly relevant to the litigation or there are confirmed examples of dishonesty[.]’” (citations omitted)
• “Only when attacks on the credibility 6 of the representative party are so sharp as to jeopardize the interests of absent class members 7 should such attacks render a putative class representative inadequate.”
• applying similar California law on right to control
• discussing factors in Portland Terminal 9 test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).