Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that alt- hough “the companies gave the representatives precise wording and materials, they certainly did not treat the representatives as simple mouthpieces reciting scripts.”
• “when an employee is engaged in the core function of a business, his or task is not properly categorized as administrative”
• “[W]hen an employee is engaged in the core function of a business, his or her task is not properly categorized as administrative.”
• “Under the statute’s express del- egation of rule-making authority, the Secretary has issued, after no- tice-and-comment procedures, detailed regulations that define each of the exemptions in § 213(a)(1).”
• \The list of factors is not a checklist; it is a guide.\
• “[T]hey keep extensive records, through which management can and does monitor their progress, [but] neither the fact that management reviews their work nor that they are required to keep such records detracts from the discretion they exercise in the core of their work.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).