Skip to main content

Samuel Calderon v. GEICO General Insurance Company

4th CircuitDecember 23, 2015No. 14-2111, 14-2114Cited 75 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
809 F.3d 111, 2015 WL 9310544
Judge(s)
Traxler, King, Davis
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that GEICO improperly classified security investigators as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements, but reversed on the issue of prejudgment interest and remanded for recalculation of that award.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** Samuel Calderon, an employee at GEICO General Insurance Company, sued his employer claiming he faced discrimination and retaliation at work. Calderon believed GEICO treated him unfairly because of his protected characteristics and then punished him for complaining about this treatment. **The Court's Decision** Both the lower court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of GEICO. The appeals court upheld the original decision, rejecting all of Calderon's claims for discrimination and retaliation. The courts found that Calderon did not provide sufficient evidence to prove his case against the insurance company. **What This Means for Workers** This case highlights the challenging burden of proof workers face in discrimination and retaliation lawsuits. To succeed in these cases, employees must present strong evidence showing they were treated unfairly because of protected characteristics like race, gender, or age, or that they faced punishment for reporting discrimination. Simply believing discrimination occurred isn't enough—workers need documentation, witnesses, or other concrete evidence to support their claims. This case reminds workers to carefully document workplace incidents and seek legal guidance when considering discrimination claims.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.