|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - April 25 - May 15, 2000
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Christensen v. Harris County, No. 98-1167,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The Court affirmed a judgment that held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),, states and their political subdivisions may require employees to schedule time off in order to reduce the amount of accrued compensatory time. Under the FLSA, employers were required to compensate their employees for overtime by granting them compensatory time. Once employees accrued a certain amount of compensatory time, employers were required to pay cash compensation for the accrued time. Respondent implemented policy requiring employees to schedule time off in order to reduce the amount of accrued compensatory time. The Court held that there was nothing in the statute that prohibited this policy. The Court rejected petitioners' argument that a provision in the statute that granted control to employees to use compensatory time implied that all other methods of spending compensatory time were precluded. The Court found that provision, viewed in the context of the overall statutory scheme, was better read as setting up a safeguard to ensure that an employee will receive timely compensation for working overtime.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
United States v. Morrison, Nos. 99-5 and 99-29,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 15, 2000, * Decided* Together with No. 99-29, Brzonkala v. Morrison et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioner victim brought an action against respondent offender under, which provided a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. The lower court struck downand concluded that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the statute under either theor. The court rejected petitioners' argument thatwas a regulation of activity that substantially affected interstate commerce. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that gender-motivated crimes of violence were not considered economic activity, and therefore, thedid not vest Congress with the authority to enact a statute regulating such. Moreover, the court affirmed that the civil remedy contained inshould be struck down as it was outside Congress's remedial power under. The civil remedy was not found to be corrective in its character nor adapted to counteract and redress the operation of such prohibited state laws or proceedings of state officers. Instead, the subject statute redressed private discrimination and was outside Congress' power to enact.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback