A Little Agency - Laney Model 18

A Little Agency - Laney Model 18

DOWNLOAD ===== https://cinurl.com/2tcXkh

In Wong-Opasi v. Tennessee State Univ., Nos. 99-5658, 99-5660, 2000 WL 1182827, 2000 U.S.App. LEXIS 21242 (Aug. 16, 2000), this Court addressed, inter alia, an FLSA claim asserted against administrators of a state college and ultimately concluded that the claim lacked merit. As an unpublished opinion, the decision is not binding precedent. See Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2002). Moreover, in light of the ultimate disposition of the case, the issue of individual liability for public agency employers was of little relevance. Simply, this Court has not addressed a textual analysis of whether the FLSA imposes individual liability on public agency employers.

In Martin v. Toledo Test Lab., Inc., 968 F.Supp. 1019 (N.D.Ohio 1997), a district court recognized that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had previously decided that the Fair Labor Standards Amendments Act (FLSA) does not apply to private employers conducting business in interstate commerce. The court then held that the same principle should be applied to private employers who work in Colorado, as "the federal government only applies the provisions of the FLSA to public employees." See id. at 1022, n. 5. Moreover, the court acknowledged that the decision was not binding precedent. See id. at 1022, n. 6. Other courts have similarly held that, while the operation of the FLSA is significant, the Office of Federal Operations is primarily concerned with interpreting the provisions of the FLSA, not its application.

As such, the Sixth Circuit has previously reviewed our interpretation of the FLSA in light of the Labor Department's obligation and concluded that "an agency official charged with interpreting the statute is entitled to a great deal of deference." See A Little Agency - Taylor Model 16, supra, at *7. As the decision provides analysis on the part of the relevant agency charged with interpreting the FLSA, it is persuasive authority.

In speaking of the application of the FLSA, the district court in Martin recognized that "to the extent that the FLSA requires employer compliance, the FLSA is not applicable to private employers who are not concerned with the needs of interstate commerce." See Martin, 968 F. d2c66b5586