Davis v Food Lion Incl - Assignment Example

Food Lion incl. on his part claims that she has a policy that prohibits her employee from working overtime. Therefore, if Davis worked overtime, it was out of his wish since he was aware of the policy. The defendant claims though Davis was the meat market manager at the North Carolina branch he used to work at Martinsville, Virginia sometimes and he was warned about the overtime by the supervisor there but he chose still to ignore it, maybe because he enjoyed his job and wouldn’t mind if he worked extra time.

It is a federal law. The law that is being litigated is the Fair Labor Standards Act section 7(a). The Act states the circumstances under which an employee can do overtime and the reward for the overtime. It categorically states that for overtime to be effective there must be an agreement between the employer and employee. For them to come up with terms, that will be binding between them, concerning the overtime. The law however puts limits on the amount of reward the employee shall receive from the employer. The amount should not be less than one hundred and fifty percent as compared to what one earns per hour on a regular pay (“FairLaborStandAct.pdf”, n.d.). This law tries to bring harmony between the employee and employer regarding overtime. Over the years before the enactment of this law, employers misused labor by using their employees as slaves, thus the government found it necessary to develop a legal framework that will ensure smooth operation and relations at the workplace.

The employer has a stronger argument against the plaintiff that is Mr. Jerry S. Davis regarding the overtime compensation dispute. The law states very clearly that for overtime to be effective there must be an agreement between the employer and employee and in this agreement they should agree on the reward. The plaintiff didn’t discuss with the employer a matter concerning overtime but rather thought since the law recognizes overtime he is entitled to be rewarded. The Act only gave direction on the minimum reward one should expect in case he/she has agreed on overtime.

The defendant also had a policy that prohibited her employees from working beyond the regular hours thus controlling issues of overtime. Davis's claim that he was “forced” to work overtime to accomplish the set target, doesn’t hold any water, since the employer just set the target to measure his productivity of him but it wasn’t mandatory for him to hit the target. This is why the defendant argued in his case that the plaintiff liked his job and aimed at meeting the target. The defendant had backup from the supervisor from Martinsville, who had cautioned Mr. Davis that Food Lions Incl. doesn’t reward its employee for overtime since it was contrary to its policy. This evidence argued out by the defendant proves her innocence and therefore not liable to pay any damages whatsoever. Read More