Robert G. Lecompte, Cross-Appellees v. Chrysler Credit Corporation, Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that engrafting \an indemnity action upon this otherwise comprehensive federal statute would run afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution\
• finding no cause of action exists for an employer to seek contribution or indemnity for violation of the FLSA
• state indemnification actions against supervisory personnel by employers who have been sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA
• “To engraft an indemnity action upon this otherwise comprehensive federal statute would run afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution [and] would undermine employers’ incentive to abide by the [FLSA].”
• “No cause of action for indemnity by an employer against its employees who violate the Act appears in the statute, nor in forty years of its existence has the Act been construed to incorporate such a theory”
• “Chrysler Credit’s counterclaim for indemnity against plaintiffs Leininger and Giordano . . . was based on the theory that they, when acting in a supervisory capacity, had perpetrated the Fair Labor Standards Act violations for which Chrysler Credit is now held liable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).