Whittington v. Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming summary judgment for the employer because timecards showed that the hours at issue were compensated
• “Relying on the employee’s recollection is permissible given the unlikelihood that an employee would keep his own records of his work hours.”
• “[A]n employee who brings suit pursuant to FLSA has the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated.”
• “At the very least, an employee relying on his own recollection to prove a violation of FLSA must have a reasonably reliable story; FLSA plaintiffs are still bound to the requirements of Rule 56.”
• plaintiff who “call[s] into question the accuracy of the [employer’s] [time] records” must “produce[] sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference”
• “At the very least, an employee relying on his own recollection to prove a violation of FLSA must have a reason‐ ably reliable story; FLSA plaintiffs are still bound to the re‐ quirements of Rule 56.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).