Horvath v. United States
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Richard A. Hertling
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
- Circuit
- Federal Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court denied the government's motion for summary judgment on the special agents' overtime pay claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Services' 8-2-2 policy denied plaintiff statutory overtime pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5542(e). The court stayed plaintiff's motion for class certification pending amendment of the complaint.
Excerpt
UNREPORTED OPINION: The Court DENIES the defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF [44]) and STAYS the plaintiff's motion for class certification (ECF [42]). The parties have 60 days to review their respective records and identify and submit to the Court any other instances, during the years relevant to Mr. Horvaths claim, for which the records indicate that he earned but did not receive § 5542(e) pay. If the Services broader review reflects that Mr. Horvath has received all the overtime pay due to him, the defendant may renew its motion for summary judgment. Until that review is complete, and the defendant determines whether to pursue a renewed motion for summary judgment, the Court will defer a decision on the plaintiffs motion. The parties will file a Joint Status Report by May 26, 2020. Signed by Judge Richard A. Hertling. (ah) Service on parties made.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
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.