Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

620 Fed.Appx. 37 (2nd Cir. 2015)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

620 Fed.Appx. 37 (2nd Cir. 2015)

Facts

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires employers to pay employees overtime for any time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, licensed attorneys who are engaged in the practice of law are exempt from this overtime requirement. David Lola (plaintiff) was a California-licensed attorney who lived in North Carolina. Beginning in April of 2012, Lola worked for Tower Legal Staffing, Inc. (defendant) as a contract attorney reviewing documents for the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (defendant) in connection with a federal multidistrict litigation. Lola’s responsibilities included applying predetermined search terms to documents he received from Skadden and Tower, sorting the documents into categories specified by Skadden and Tower, and occasionally drawing black boxes to redact portions of the documents in accordance with procedures set forth by Skadden and Tower. Although Lola was a Tower employee, he was instructed to follow procedures set by Skadden attorneys, and his work was closely supervised by Skadden attorneys. Lola worked approximately 45 to 55 hours per week at a rate of $25 per hour. He did not receive a higher rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Other attorneys working on the project performed the same type of work and were also paid the same hourly rate regardless of whether they worked more than 40 hours per week. Lola brought an action against Tower and Skadden in federal district court, alleging a violation of FLSA’s overtime provisions based on the failure to pay contract attorneys overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The district court found that Lola was exempt from the overtime requirement because he was a licensed attorney conducting document review, which North Carolina considers to be the practice of law. The court dismissed Lola’s complaint, and Lola appealed to the United States Court of Appeals to the Second Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pooler, 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 516,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 516,000 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
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 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