Law Commons^™

It’S About Time: Rejection Of The De Minimis Doctrine In State Wage And Hour Laws, Abigail Britton

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in 1938, courts have grappled with how to interpret which activities an employee performs for their employer should be considered “work.” The FLSA requires employers pay a minimum wage, pay overtime, and keep records of their employees’ time. However, to calculate these wages based on hours worked, the employer must know what constitutes “work.” Over the 80 years since its enactment, federal courts have adopted rules to determine what counts as work. One doctrine courts apply is the de minimis doctrine. Under the de minimis doctrine, employers do not need …

Following In California’S Footsteps?: Pennsylvania Eliminates The De Minimis Exception In State Wage And Hour Claims, Lauren E. Stahl

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), employers risk receiving wage and hour violations if they fail to compensate employees for all “hours worked” or fail to adhere to minimum wage and overtime requirements. The de minimis doctrine provides an exception to this general rule and excuses employers from compensating employees for insignificant amounts of time spent on otherwise compensable off-the-clock work activities. Examples of de minimis off-the-clock work activities include waiting for a computer to load or waiting to log onto a computer network. These activities are considered de minimis because they take only a minute or less, and …

How Can Federal Actors Compete On Noncompetes? Examining The Need For And Possibility Of Federal Action On Noncompetition Agreements, Robert Mcavoy

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Employees have been frustrated by the restrictiveness of noncompete agreements and confused about their enforceability for decades. The added complication of choice-of-law provisions in employment contracts with noncompetes creates a sea of unpredictability for both employees and employers.

Each state applies its own policy to noncompete agreements. While every state treats noncompetes differently than typical contract provisions, a broad spectrum exists between the states that are friendly and those that are hostile to the enforcement of noncompetes. Employees and employers often fail to understand whether their noncompete is enforceable under the jurisdiction chosen by the contract, and courts override choice-of-law …

Choice Of Law And The Preponderantly Multistate Rule: The Example Of Successor Corporation Products Liability, Diana Sclar

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Most state rules of substantive law, whether legislative or judicial, ordinarily adjust rights and obligations among local parties with respect to local events. Conventional choice of law methodologies for adjudicating disputes with multistate connections all start from an explicit or implicit assumption of a choice between such locally oriented substantive rules. This article reveals, for the first time, that some state rules of substantive law ordinarily adjust rights and obligations with respect to parties and events connected to more than one state and only occasionally apply to wholly local matters. For these rules I use the term “nominally domestic rules …

Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to protect competition in the marketplace. Federal antitrust law has developed to prevent businesses from exerting unfair power on their employees and customers. Specifically, the Sherman Act prevents competitors from reaching unreasonable agreements amongst themselves and from monopolizing markets. However, not all industries have these protections.

Historically, federal antitrust law has not governed the “Business of Baseball.” The Supreme Court had the opportunity to apply antitrust law to baseball in Federal Baseball Club, Incorporated v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; however, the Court held that the Business of Baseball was not …

A False Sense Of Security: How Congress And The Sec Are Dropping The Ball On Cryptocurrency, Tessa E. Shurr

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Today, companies use blockchain technology and digital assets for a variety of purposes. This Comment analyzes the digital token. If the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) views a digital token as a security, then the issuer of the digital token must comply with the registration and extensive disclosure requirements of federal securities laws.

To determine whether a digital asset is a security, the SEC relies on the test that the Supreme Court established in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. Rather than enforcing a statute or agency rule, the SEC enforces securities laws by applying the Howey test on a fact-intensive …

Uniform Commercial Acts, Samuel Williston

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.