James v. Cammack

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that the “question of a defendant’s status as ‘employer’ for purposes of FLSA liability also does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.”
• recognizing the third factor is shown when a single party controls employment decisions across multiple corporations
• “The question of a defendant’s status as ‘employer’ for purposes of FLSA liability ... does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.”
• “Consequently, whether a defendant is an employer as defined by the FLSA is an element of the plaintiff’s meritorious FLSA claim and does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.”
• “Consequently, whether a defendant is an employer as defined by the FLSA is an element of the plaintiff’s meritorious FLSA claim and does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).