Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC Defendants acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief that they were not in violation of the Wage and Hour Act when they refused to pay plaintiff bonuses for patents which had not issued yet at the time plaintiff’s employment ended. However, since defendants never reduced to writing – until shortly before plaintiff’s employment ended – a change in plaintiff’s wages, defendants have not shown that they acted in good faith or reasonably believed they were not in violation of the Act when they refused to pay plaintiff bonuses for patents which had already issued. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages equal to bonuses that he should have received for patents that had already issued when his employment ended.
Dulaney v. Inmar, Inc. Before Jan. 1, 2010, the defendant-employer gave the plaintiff-employee a copy of its “2010 Promotion Services Rebate and Fulfillment Services Sales and Renewal Incentive Plan.” According to the Plan, incentive payments were to be made approximately six weeks after the end of the quarter in which the qualifying sales were made; moreover, one had to be a Plan participant at the time of the payout in order to receive the incentive payment. Plaintiff resigned on July 22, 2010, prior to the Plan’s incentive payout date for the quarter ending June 30, 2010; therefore, the employer did not violate the Wage and Hour Act when it failed to make incentive payments to plaintiff for her second-quarter sales.
Mancinelli v. Momentum Research, Inc. Plaintiff abruptly left her job, taking an immediate leave of absence and notifying her supervisors of this leave through a letter which instructed the defendant-employer not to contact her; moreover, plaintiff failed to inform her supervisors of the status of the project on which she was working prior to her departure and refused to turn over information related to the project. The employer had cause to terminate plaintiff pursuant to § 5(a) of the parties’ employment contract (“Employee’s failure or refusal to perform his or her job duties or other breach of a material term of this Agreement”).
The "junior asset managers" of a Charlotte mortgage-servicing firm answered phones and collected payments. They didn't supervise others, didn't make final decisions on how to process accounts - and at one point they were asked to fill out time cards to document their hours. Yet the workers at United Mortgage and Loan Investment routinely were asked to work more than 40 hours a week and were deemed exempt from federal wage and hour laws that require overtime pay.
Lockett v. Sister-2-Sister Solutions Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0014, 17 pp.) (Barbara Jackson, J.) Appealed from Chatham County Superior Court. (Howard Manning & Allen Baddour, JJ.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: When a plaintiff alleges that an individual has independent liability apart from a corporation, the plaintiff cannot [...]