“When evaluating whether settlements purporting to waive or release claims pursuant to the FLSA may be enforced, courts look to evidence in the records before them to see whether the settlements resolved ‘bona fide disputes’ regarding the number of allegedly unpaid hours or compensation due at the time that payment was received. By contrast, here,

“Citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this court has held that ‘[r]easonable attorney’s fees are mandatory’ when a court finds that an employer has violated § 206.20. Section 216(b) also requires the district court to order the defendant to pay the costs of the action. Although the district court has discretion to determine what is reasonable,

“Unlike credit card issuer fees, which every employer accepting credit card tips must pay, the cost of cash delivery three times a week is an indirect and discretionary cost associated with accepting credit card tips. As the district court noted, this cash delivery was “a business decision, not a fee directly attributable to its cost

Defendant contended that “the facts of this case are “unsuited for resolution via the FLSA’s collective action mechanism” because of the differences in the individual work and pay histories as well as the fact that each class member must show that Dauterive managers had actual or constructive knowledge that overtime qualifying work was being performed

“‘Commerce’ means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof.’ Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant itself has offices in four states and five countries. In addition, PetroMar’s business involves shipping in the oil and maritime industry, and its employees were sent to work on

“Defendant suggests that Plaintiff’s complaint fails because he does not allege the total amount of unpaid wages that he deserves.  An FLSA plaintiff is not, however, required to plead the precise amount of unpaid wages to which he is allegedly entitled.”

Murphy v. Multi-Shot, LLC, 2014 WL 4471538, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 10,

“Plaintiff alleges that the workers are ‘hourly employees’ who ‘supply no materials or tools of their own’ and ‘are directly supervised, directed and controlled by [Owner] and [Supervisor].  These allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to overcome the instant motion to dismiss.”

Stewart v. Caton, 2013 WL 4459981, at *9 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2013)

“At this stage, should Plaintiffs prevail on their argument that the bonuses were non discretionary and overtime wages were improperly calculated, this finding would be applicable to a class of all operators or riggers.”

Wilson v. Anderson Perforating, Ltd., 2013 WL 3356046 at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 3, 2013) (Rodriguez, J.).

“Defendant appears to blur the distinction between incidents that may not be considered for purposes of establishing liability for damages, because they occurred outside the limitations period, and what nevertheless may be admissible and probative as background evidence to support a claim based on alleged conduct that falls within the limitations period.”

Arnett v. Sears,

“White clearly stands for the proposition that where an employer prevents its employee from reporting overtime or was otherwise on notice of the employee’s unreported work, an employee may recover damages under the FLSA, regardless of whether the employee exhausted any internal company grievance policy or time correction policy.”

Arnett v. Sears, Roebuck and Co