Employees’ use of goods and materials produced outside the state as part of their jobs creates a a genuine dispute of material fact whether their employer is an “enterprise engaged in interstate commerce” under the FLSA.

By Austin Campbell on September 27, 2016

“Therefore, because Defendants have pointed only to her lack of evidence, to defeat summary judgment, Plaintiff must adduce evidence that goods or materials she or the collective plaintiffs she represents handled or worked on during their employment with [Defendant] moved in or were produced for interstate commerce. [Plaintiff] has put forward evidence to show that some of the equipment she and other employees used during their employment at [Defendant] included goods and materials, such as polysomnography equipment and nasal airflow sensors, that were manufactured outside of the state of Texas and moved in the stream of interstate commerce. Based on this evidence, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” 2016 WL 5122123, at *3-4 (emphasis in original).

McDaniel v. Family Sleep Diagnostics, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-4031-KS, 2016 WL 5122123 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2016).

Texas Employment Lawyer

Employees’ use of goods and materials produced outside the state as part of their jobs creates a a genuine dispute of material fact whether their employer is an “enterprise engaged in interstate commerce” under the FLSA.

About the Texas Employment Lawyer Blog