Kellar V. Summit Seating Incorporated - Essay Prowess

Kellar V. Summit Seating Incorporated

Kellar V. Summit Seating Incorporated

  

Paper instructions: This is my 2nd of 4 legal brief’s that are due.

This case is: Kellar v. Summit Seating

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1588831.html

Please see the attached documents and also the links.

Two minor changes from paper 1: I have have two minor changes that you should make as you submit your three remaining briefs. First of all, the case citation should appear at the very top of the brief. It is not a reference like on a paper. Second, where you indicate the parties, you should just note the name and P or D. For example in this case, all you would have to say under parties, is Chattman, P and Toho Tenax America, D.

Kellar V. Summit Seating Incorporated

Student`s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Date

KELLAR v. SUMMIT SEATING INCORPORATED. Court of Appeal.

11-1221 (7th Cir. 12-14-2011)

Parties

Kellar, P a sewing manager and Summit Seating Incorporated, D

Facts and backgrounds

Keller, P a sewing manager argues she is eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers are required by the FLSA to pay overtime to employees that work more than forty hours in a work week (Kellar v. Summit Seating Incorporated 2011). The employee is required to give proof that she worked overtime and she was not properly compensated. The employer is obliged to provide proof that an exemption from the FLSA applies.

In 2001, Keller, P started to work for Summit which is a small organization involved in the manufacturing of seating for buses, trucks and vans (Kellar v. Summit Seating Incorporated 2011). She started working as a cutter’s helper. In 2004, she was promoted to Sewing manager. She was tasked with providing sewers with the products needed for sewing. Additionally, she was tasked with tracking supplies and making sure that the employees completed work as scheduled. She handled between seven and eight workers and she was paid per hour. She argued that she arrives at work between 15 and 45 minutes before the beginning of her 5.00 a.m. shift.

Issues

Did the trial court err by granting judgment in favor of Summit; when Kellar, P claimed that she worked overtime.

Decisions

Kellar, P’s Pre-Shift cannot be considered as Preliminary Work

It was not De Minimis.

Rules applied by the court.

The Portal-to-Portal Act states that “preliminary” activities to principal activities cannot be compensated.

Employers are required by the FLSA to pay overtime to employees that work more than forty hours in a work week.

The employee is required to give proof that she worked overtime and she was not properly compensated.

The employer is obliged to provide proof that an exemption from the FLSA applies.

Reasoning

Kellar, P could not be compensated as her Pre-shift was not preliminary work (Kellar v. Summit Seating Incorporated 2011). According to the witness, she spent most of her pre-shift socializing. Kellar, P deposition testimony created a genuine dispute.

Consequences

Kellar, P is not eligible for overtime benefits.

References

Kellar v. Summit Seating Incorporated. Court of Appeal. 11-1221 (7th Cir. 12-14-2011)

  
%d bloggers like this: