Max Jordan Bauunternehmung v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that task of rewriting press releases, etc. 14 did not meet artistic professional exemption in part because it did not “require any special imagination or skill at making a complicated thing seem simple”
• relying on the representative testimony of twenty-two (22) employees in finding that seventy (70) employees were misclassified as exempt professionals
• stating “it is settled that the burden (with respect to a given employee
• Individual coverage under the FLSA can be established if an employee is “engage[d] in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” (citations omitted)
• “Courts commonly allow representative employees to prove violations with respect to all employees.”
• “[N]ot all employees need to testify in order to prove the violations or to recoup back wages. Rather, the Secretary [of Labor] can rely on testimony and evidence from representative employees to meet the initial burden of proof requirement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).