Ibp Inc. V. Alvarez Case Study

Improved Essays
I. PARTIES TO THE CASE: IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) the plaintiff of this case is Gabriel Alvarez, Individually and on behalf of all other workers of Packing plant in Pasco, Washington. The employees had a class action lawsuit against the defendant Barber Foods and IBP.
II. FORUM: In two separate cases, the employees of the packing plant sued Berber Foods and IBP in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
III. STATUTE(S) INVOLVED IN THE CASE: the statutory of the Portal-to-portal act responded to what the congress considered an interpretation of compensable “work” under the FLSA. Petition 88(a) says that there is no mandatory compensation for “walking to and from the actual place of performance of the principal
…show more content…
Roberts argued that Steiner’s of activities within the definition of “principal activities” is explicitly limited to 4(a) (2) rule in regards of preliminary and postliminary is not applicable to 4(a) (1) rule in regards to employees’ walking and travel time. Counsel for the employers, Carter G. Phillips, argued that Steiner formed a third category of activities “integral and indispensable” these activities applied to be compensable, but these activities were not considered “primary activities”. In addition, Carter G. Phillips, claimed “that simply because the changing of clothes may constitute an employee’s principal activity, this “does not necessarily mean that travel time between the clothes-changing place and the actual place of performance would be excluded from the type of travel to which section 4(a) refers.” (Floridabar.org, …show more content…
V Alvarez. At Anderson case the walking preceded the employees’ principal activity whereas, at IBP case, the walking occurs after the work day begins and before it

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    1. Based on these facts, what are the policy considerations in favor and against allowing the plaintiff to pursue a lawsuit against OSHA, seeking a writ of mandamus from a federal judge, and requiring OSHA to adjudicate plaintiff’s retaliation claim against the employer? This case is about a man, Roger Wood, a former electrician that worked for United Engineers and Constructors at the Johnson Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System location and witnessed management and co-workers not using the proper safety precautions when destroying chemical weapons. Before Wood worked for JACADS, he was employed at Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas and gained extensive knowledge in the handling and destroying of chemical weapons. Wood filed several safety complaints…

    • 1784 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Decent Essays

    1) Collect all Crosby cases in which a plaintiff alleges malpractice against a lawyer for failure to draft a shareholder or CCA that protects minority shareholders. As a threshold matter, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions is one year. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.11(A).…

    • 1912 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    (Count 4). Affinity and Wilcox moved for entry of summary judgement in their favor and wanted the case dismissed because they plaintiff had failed to appear for a deposition or a response to a notice which was in lieu of subpoena. Even though the plaintiff objected the trial court granted both motions. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the appellate Division reversed and remanded. Facts: Howard D. Brunson was accused and sued for…

    • 1124 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Sam's Club Case Study

    • 1376 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The court conjointly finished that as a result of such criteria for promotion aren't mentioned within the worker book of facts, although it was unwritten policy, it's moot. what is more, it's very unknown whether or not a coaching-free year is an objective and one in all several qualifications that Hernando Cortes required to determine for a clear case. Wal-Mart tried to claim that its no-coaching qualification was set as an objective live that was a part of the promotion criteria. The work itself is subjective and based mostly part on the subjective opinions of a manager. At trial, Garnern, Cortez’s supervisor, testified that work is “not always” supported the subjective opinions of a supervisor, and also the court…

    • 1376 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The doctrine of respondeat superior holds that generally an employer is not liable for the acts of its employee unless the servant is acting with the scope of their employment at the time of the incident. Taylor v. Pate, 859 P.2d 1124 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). In most instances, an employee traveling either to or from work is not considered to be acting within the scope of their employment.…

    • 1403 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Lifestyle Statute

    • 1035 Words
    • 4 Pages

    California Labor Code section 96(k) protects lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises. This law appears to be broad, however, it is restrictive. In Barbee v. Household Automotive, the Court held that 96(k) did not create a substantive right; instead, it was a procedure for the Labor Commissioner to uphold already recognized constitutional rights. This essentially means the California lifestyle statute only protects previously “recognized constitutional rights.” Thus, based on state common law, this statute is inadequate in protecting applicants from employers screening of their Facebook accounts since it will not protect an employee 's online behavior and conduct outside of…

    • 1035 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hence, the principal was liable. This case is reflected in the event of Maya and Kallessi. The new supplier whom Maya ordered the supplies from was not aware of the agreement set between the agent and principal, and assumed that ordering supplies is a common activity for the hotel manager. Since Kallessi did not inform the supplier that Maya was not permitted to order goods of more than £150, Maya has ostensible authority and is not liable in this…

    • 1852 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Grocery, Inc. Case Study

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Authority to Subcontract the work by Build them to fall, from Masterpiece Construction was not granted by Grocery Inc. and as such Masterpiece Construction cannot place a claim based upon commercial impracticability as this action of assuming additional work was done post contract with Grocery, Inc. It is believed the demand for specific performance on behalf of Grocery, Inc. would be rejected by the court based upon the fact that construction falls under the category of a service-related…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Crosby V. NFTC Case Study

    • 533 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Crosby v. NFTC 530 U.S. 363 (2000) Facts A case involving state and federal policies with the same objective. In 1996 Massachusetts passed a law banning state entities from purchasing or selling goods or services from companies conducting business with Burma. Congress subsequently passed a statue imposing conditional and mandatory sanctions on Burma. The act also allowed the president to impose further sanctions subject to certain conditions. In 1997, President Clinton issued and executive order certifying that the government of Burma committed large-scaled repression of the democratic process and the government’s actions constituted threats considered to be national emergencies.…

    • 533 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Main Line, however, argued there was no distinction between Basinger and Mighty Wind. Main Line said because the services bargained for were Basingers, when Basinger breached, Mighty Wind breached as well and that Mighty Wind was simply a “tax configuration.” The trial court said that everything that was done by Mighty Wind was done by Basinger and Basinger and Mighty Wind were not separated. The jury concluded both Basinger and Mighty Wind entered into oral and written contracts and had breached them. The defendants and appellants are appealing against the $8 million ruling against them from the judgement of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of Main Line Pictures. This is in response to the breach of contract by Main Line and Kim Basinger in the production of the movie “Boxing Helena.” The defendants and appellants are appealing because they disagree on the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of the damages.…

    • 946 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays