Ohio Valley Tie Co. v. Hayes ex rel. Massey

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[t]he purpose of the FLSA . . . was to guarantee compensation for all work or employment engaged in by employees covered by the Act” (quoting Reich v. New York City Transit Auth., 45 F.3d 646, 648-49 (2d Cir. 1995))
• explaining that “[t]he purpose of the FLSA . . . was to guarantee [] compensation for all work or employment engaged in by employees covered by the Act” (quoting Reich v. New York City Transit Auth., 45 F.3d 646, 648–49 (2d Cir. 1995))
• explaining that “[t]he purpose of the FLSA . . . was to guarantee [] compensation for all work or employment engaged in by employees covered by the Act” (quoting Reich v. New York City Transit Auth., 45 F.3d 646, 648–49 (2d Cir. 1995))
• declining to consider potential arbitration defense when “defendants have not moved to compel arbitration of any of the named plaintiffs for whom they assert arbitration agreements exist”
• arguments that “attack the merits of the case” should not be “addressed at this juncture”
• “[S]ome Courts have found that the delay in ruling on a motion for condition approval, coupled with the plaintiffs’ diligence . . . is enough to grant equitable tolling.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).