Facts of the Case
In Mitchell v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co. the petitioner proposed a case against Abercrombie & Fitch stating that the defendant has violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The plaintiff, Melissa Mitchell, has decided to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of herself as well as other affected members. The specific violations that arise from these two acts stem from Abercrombie & Fitch’s negligence with regards to paying Managers-in-Training and Assistant Managers the proper raised compensation of overtime pay (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)).
It is noted that during her time working at Abercrombie & Fitch, Ms. Mitchell did earn more than the minimum wage (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)). She was paid an additional half time for all hours worked over forty per work-week. Abercrombie & Fitch’s main defense point relies on the fact that Ms. Mitchell did not work consistent work weeks, ranging from over to under forty hours on any given week. In the case of working under the mandated forty hour week, Abercrombie & Fitch paid Ms. Mitchell as if she had worked the full time. Ms. Mitchell has made her assertion based on the Fair Labor Standards Act. This act states that each employee who has worked over forty hours should be granted time and a half pay. However, this did not occur, as Ms. Mitchell spent many overtime hours working as a Manager-in-Training and was not paid the corresponding time and one-half amount (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)). Abercrombie & Fitch stands by their decision to short Ms. Mitchell’s paycheck, as they had paid her a previous “supplemental pay” when she had not worked the entirety of a 40 hour work week, thus dismissing Mitchell’s claims using the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Ms. Mitchell began working with Abercrombie & Fitch after being referred for the position by co-Plantiff and friend Jennifer Frietsch, who also happens to be a former Assistant Manager. Ms. Mitchell was interviewed and hired as a Manager In Training by the District Manager, Bill Leifheit. During the interview, Mr. Leifheit explained Ms. Mitchell’s compensation as an employee of Abercrombie & Fitch in full detail and made sure to note that in addition to her weekly salary, she would earn an additional half time pay per hour of overtime work when applicable if and when she was officially hired as an Assistant Manager. When this time came, she did receive an increase in pay but was never compensated adequately when her work week exceeded 40 hours. As a result, Ms. Mitchell resigned from her position in December of 2002 (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)). Ms. Mitchell was again informed of Abercrombie & Fitch’s payment policies when she attended the job orientation. She found the policy stated in the handbook to be unclear, as she interpreted the supplemental pay system for overtime hours as an additional pay on top of her normal weekly salary. However, Abercrombie & Fitch maintains that the policy is clear in stating that the pay rate above 40 hours will be at half of the normal pay rate. Mitchell signed off on the handbook, ensuring she was in accordance with the guidelines (428 F.Supp.2d …show more content…
Abercrombie & Co. is if Abercrombie properly compensated Mitchell during her time with the company. As a Manager-in-Training, Mitchell should be classified as nonexempt and therefore be provided with overtime compensation. Should Ms. Mitchell continue to be an Abercrombie & Fitch employee and eventually be promoted to Store Manager, she would subsequently be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The main distinction between the two positions is the increase in managerial responsibility and skill required tasks. A Manager does not perform the repetitive, menial chores that are assigned to a Manager-In-Training. Mitchell believed that Abercrombie’s fluctuating workweek method of supplemental pay was not fair and that there was never a mutual understanding of the pay rate. She saw the supplemental pay as a bonus, but also felt entitled to receive the required overtime compensation. The court ultimately ruled that Abercrombie’s payment method was legal because Mitchell agreed to the employee guidelines and signed off on the guidelines of the employee
In Mitchell v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co. the petitioner proposed a case against Abercrombie & Fitch stating that the defendant has violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The plaintiff, Melissa Mitchell, has decided to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of herself as well as other affected members. The specific violations that arise from these two acts stem from Abercrombie & Fitch’s negligence with regards to paying Managers-in-Training and Assistant Managers the proper raised compensation of overtime pay (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)).
It is noted that during her time working at Abercrombie & Fitch, Ms. Mitchell did earn more than the minimum wage (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)). She was paid an additional half time for all hours worked over forty per work-week. Abercrombie & Fitch’s main defense point relies on the fact that Ms. Mitchell did not work consistent work weeks, ranging from over to under forty hours on any given week. In the case of working under the mandated forty hour week, Abercrombie & Fitch paid Ms. Mitchell as if she had worked the full time. Ms. Mitchell has made her assertion based on the Fair Labor Standards Act. This act states that each employee who has worked over forty hours should be granted time and a half pay. However, this did not occur, as Ms. Mitchell spent many overtime hours working as a Manager-in-Training and was not paid the corresponding time and one-half amount (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)). Abercrombie & Fitch stands by their decision to short Ms. Mitchell’s paycheck, as they had paid her a previous “supplemental pay” when she had not worked the entirety of a 40 hour work week, thus dismissing Mitchell’s claims using the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Ms. Mitchell began working with Abercrombie & Fitch after being referred for the position by co-Plantiff and friend Jennifer Frietsch, who also happens to be a former Assistant Manager. Ms. Mitchell was interviewed and hired as a Manager In Training by the District Manager, Bill Leifheit. During the interview, Mr. Leifheit explained Ms. Mitchell’s compensation as an employee of Abercrombie & Fitch in full detail and made sure to note that in addition to her weekly salary, she would earn an additional half time pay per hour of overtime work when applicable if and when she was officially hired as an Assistant Manager. When this time came, she did receive an increase in pay but was never compensated adequately when her work week exceeded 40 hours. As a result, Ms. Mitchell resigned from her position in December of 2002 (428 F.Supp.2d 725 (2006)). Ms. Mitchell was again informed of Abercrombie & Fitch’s payment policies when she attended the job orientation. She found the policy stated in the handbook to be unclear, as she interpreted the supplemental pay system for overtime hours as an additional pay on top of her normal weekly salary. However, Abercrombie & Fitch maintains that the policy is clear in stating that the pay rate above 40 hours will be at half of the normal pay rate. Mitchell signed off on the handbook, ensuring she was in accordance with the guidelines (428 F.Supp.2d …show more content…
Abercrombie & Co. is if Abercrombie properly compensated Mitchell during her time with the company. As a Manager-in-Training, Mitchell should be classified as nonexempt and therefore be provided with overtime compensation. Should Ms. Mitchell continue to be an Abercrombie & Fitch employee and eventually be promoted to Store Manager, she would subsequently be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The main distinction between the two positions is the increase in managerial responsibility and skill required tasks. A Manager does not perform the repetitive, menial chores that are assigned to a Manager-In-Training. Mitchell believed that Abercrombie’s fluctuating workweek method of supplemental pay was not fair and that there was never a mutual understanding of the pay rate. She saw the supplemental pay as a bonus, but also felt entitled to receive the required overtime compensation. The court ultimately ruled that Abercrombie’s payment method was legal because Mitchell agreed to the employee guidelines and signed off on the guidelines of the employee