Lucas v. Hickman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “unstructured off-duty training exercises,” such as time spent in off-duty weapons practice or studying, are “training” activities and “are therefore appropriately analyzed under [5 C.F.R. § 551.423]”
• stating that “the Circuit Courts of Appeals have uniformly adopted the knowledge requirement” for purposes of FLSA analysis
• determining that the Government did not waive an affirmative defense, where “the plaintiffs offered no evidence of unfairness generally, or that they were unfairly surprised by the defendant’s use of this defense”
• finding U.S. Customs employees entitled to compensation for laundering and processing towels off-duty because it was an integral part of training a dog to detect contraband
• noting that “[c]ourts have found willful violations of the FLSA where an employer disregards the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division warnings, . . . ignores the advice of its own legal department, . . . or has been penalized previously for violating the FLSA
• requiring an “underlying finding that the [agency] required plaintiffs to participate in [training] and that, if plaintiffs did not participate, their employment would have been adversely affected”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).