Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp.

248 F.R.D. 647 (2008)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
248 F.R.D. 647 (2008)

Facts

Ronald Clausnitzer and others (the employees) (plaintiffs) worked as hourly employees at Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) (defendant). According to the employees, FedEx required them to work during certain gap periods, including before and after their scheduled work times and during unpaid breaks, and did not pay them for doing so. The employees all signed employment agreements specifying that the employment was at will and received copies of an employment handbook and people manual that disclaimed the creation of any contractual rights. Section 3-92 of the people manual specifically stated that it was FedEx policy to compensate employees for all time worked in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and further provided that employees were not permitted to work off the clock for any reason. The employees filed a lawsuit against FedEx for breach of contract and sought class certification. The proposed class consisted of hourly, nonexempt employees from every state except California whose claims were not time barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Altonga, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership