Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc.
| Citation | 646 F.2d 413 |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-4670,79-4670 |
| Parties | 24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 1406, 91 Lab.Cas. P 34,020 Billy H. FORRESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROTH'S I. G. A. FOODLINER, INCORPORATED, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
William B. Wyllie, Salem, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.
Valerie J. Vollmar, Clark, Marsh & Lindauer, Salem, Or., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before ANDERSON, PREGERSON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal of a summary judgment granted to the defendant-appellee, Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner. The district court's opinion, which appears at 475 F.Supp. 630, sets forth the nature of the controversy.
Plaintiff-appellant, Forrester, contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Roth's because the doctrine of equitable estoppel is inapplicable to Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) claims: and even if the doctrine is applicable, it had not been established in this case.
Although we agree that the grant of summary judgment to Roth's was appropriate, we affirm on a different basis.
Under the FLSA, no employer shall employ any of its covered employees for a work week that is longer than 40 hours unless that employee receives as compensation for his employment at least one and a half times the regular rate for all overtime hours. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). An employer who violates this provision is liable to the employee for the overtime wage, as well as an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and the court may allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
As defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(g), " '(e)mploy' includes to suffer or permit to work." "(T)he words 'suffer' and 'permit' as used in the statute mean 'with the knowledge of the employer.' " Fox v. Summit King Mines, 143 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1944). Thus an employer who knows or should have known that an employee is or was working overtime must comply with the provisions of § 207. An employer who is armed with this knowledge cannot stand idly by and allow an employee to perform overtime work without proper compensation, even if the employee does not make a claim for the overtime compensation.
However, where an employer has no knowledge that an employee is engaging in overtime work and that employee fails to notify the employer or deliberately prevents the employer from acquiring knowledge of the overtime work, the employer's failure to pay for the overtime hours is not a violation of § 207.
In the present case, the officials of Roth's stated in their affidavits that they had no knowledge that Forrester had been working uncompensated overtime hours. 475 F.Supp. at 631. Forrester himself testified in his deposition that he "did not mention any unpaid overtime work to any store official prior to filing his complaint." Id. Forrester did not raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether any official of Roth's should have known about his alleged uncompensated hours. Further,
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lasater v. DirecTV, LLC
..."knew or should have known" that they worked hours for which they were not adequately compensated. Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs first respond that such notice requirement is particularly inappropriate in cases like this one where ......
-
Cohen v. BH Media Grp., Inc., Civil Action No. 17-00024
...for the overtime compensation." Newton v. City of Henderson, 47 F.3d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1981) ).Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours bec......
-
Ketchum v. City of Vallejo
...or has reason to believe that the work is being performed, he must count the time as hours worked"); see also Forrester v. Roth's Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir.1981) ("[A]n employer who knows or should have known that an employee is or was working overtime must comply with the......
-
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.
...employee is or was working overtime must comply with the provisions of [29 U.S.C] § 207 [maximum hours]." (Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A Foodliner, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 646 F.2d 413, 414; see also 29 C.F.R §§ 785.11, Implicitly relying on the Court of Appeal's revised definition of "hours worked......
-
A Sunny 'Off-The-Clock' Result For Golden State Employers
...the imposition of discipline." The Jong court applied the off-the-clock standard set forth in Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1981) (Forrester), after noting that (i) the Forrester standard was assumed to apply to state law claims by both parties and the t......
-
Chapter § 2-1 29 CFR § 541.0. Introductory Statement
...she prevents the employer from knowing its obligation to compensate the employee. . . ."). • Forrester v. Roth's I.G.A. Foodliner Inc., 646 F. 2d 413 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming summary judgment where "employer has no knowledge that an employee is engaging in overtime work and that employee ......