Reyes v. Remington Hybrid Seed Co., Inc.

495 F.3d 403 | Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 2007

remandedCited 25 timesBATTLE_TESTEDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Remington is a joint employer with Zarate under the FLSA and AWPA because detasseling is integral to Remington's operation, conducted on its premises with its equipment and supervision, and Zarate lacked independent business capacity.

Remington must be deemed the workers' employer for events that occurred in the fields.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2007

Related Cases

Gall v. United States

2007enforced

Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.

Piotrowski v. City of Houston

2001reversed

Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

1995remanded

Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.

Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville

1993remanded

An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.

In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

2005enforced

The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.

Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company

1999reversed

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.