By Andy Delaney 
There's a bad Spanish lawyer joke here
--not quite a pun but close
Hmm.
I thought I was going to write
about one opinion today, but there are two, so I’ll halve my effort. This means
two mediocre summaries for the price of one.
There was a criminal entry order—presumably issued the Friday before last—that I swear was not there when I checked last Sunday. This one is a familiar tale. Defendant is charged with three serious-felony drug offenses, faces life in prison, and has the habitual offender enhancement in play. Trial court finds some factors in favor of bail and others not as trial court will do. Trial court holds defendant without bail. Defendant tries a few times to get out and brings witnesses and proposed supervisors. Trial court still says no. Defendant appeals. On appeal, SCOV reasons that the trial court’s discretion prevails and defendant stays locked up. State v. Main, 2022 VT 18 (mem.).
This week’s decision is about the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), commissions, and overtime pay. There are numbers. There are statutory provisions. I tried to follow the math but it was futile. Let me see if I can lay it out without making it overly complicated. Employee worked for bank as a loan originator on a commission basis. Commission basis in this context means draws against future commissions and some base-pay calculations. It’s a . . . method. Plaintiff worked for the bank for three years and never got paid overtime. She sued the bank, alleging this was a violation of the FLSA. Trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the bank. On appeal, SCOV affirms and reasons after an episode of Math Wars™ that employee’s math is way off and doesn’t add up. Yes, that’s right; I thought about that last sentence, recognized the horrid pun, and wrote it anyway. You’re welcome. SCOV affirms. Mitchell v. NBT Bank, N.A., 2022 VT 17.
Comments
Post a Comment