Marburger v. Upper Hanover Township

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that a plaintiff who had “contacts with the general citizenry and other Township officials on [an elected body’s] behalf” was more like a personal staff member than a covered employee
• looking to the nature of the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the elected official to determine if the personal staff exemption applied
• using Teneyuca factors to determine applicability of “policymaking” employee exemption under the Equal Pay Act
• looking to case law analyzing the EPA, Title VII, and other anti-discrimination laws with similar statutory definition of “employee” to decide whether plaintiff was excepted from EPA coverage
• finding that a plaintiff who “had substantial contact with [an elected body] in order to properly express its will as she interacted on [its] behalf with a wide variety of Township officers” was more akin to the elected body’s personal staff member than its employee
• synthesizing a factor test from Teneyuca and other federal cases nationwide under the FLSA, Title VII, and other anti-discrimination legislation to assess whether the plaintiff qualified as personal staff under the FLSA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).