From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
587 F.3d 529 (2009)
Facts
Andrew Whalen (plaintiff) was employed by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (Chase) (defendant) as an underwriter. Chase underwriters were responsible for deciding whether to approve loan applications based on detailed guidelines provided by Chase. If the loan met the standards set forth in the guidelines, the underwriter was expected to approve the loan application. Chase evaluated underwriters based on whether the underwriters’ decisions adhered to the standards in the guidelines and measured underwriters’ productivity based on their average total actions performed each day. Chase sometimes paid underwriters incentives to increase their productivity, and Chase employees referred to underwriters’ work as production work rather than operations work. During Whalen’s employment with Chase, Chase had a policy of treating underwriters as administrative employees who were exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Whalen sued Chase in federal district court to challenge Chase’s policy, arguing that Chase had mischaracterized him as an exempt employee and failed to pay him overtime compensation. Whalen and Chase filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied Whalen’s motion, granted Chase’s motion, and dismissed Whalen’s complaint. Whalen appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
