Chao v. Gotham Registry (Ch 12, p 372)
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
The staffing agency Gotham Registry provided contracted nursing staff to medical facilities. Gotham policy stated that all professionals placed by the agency provide notification and receive prior approval before acquiring any overtime hours. The requirement was posted on the employee timecards and employees were warned that they would not be paid the overtime wage rate for any overtime accrued if it had not been pre-approved. The court had to determine if Gotham staffing was responsible for the overtime work completed by the nurses they placed in hospitals when pre-authorization was not obtained. The court decided that Gotham was responsible for compensating the employees for all overtime work performed, even when pre-authorization was not obtained (Walsh, 2010).
2. Why did it ultimately not matter that the staffing agency had a policy requiring prior approval of overtime work? That the agency was not in the workplace and had no prior notification of the disputed overtime work?
Because Gotham did not bar the accrual of overtime, the working requirements of the employees clearly indicated a trend for overtime accrual, because Gotham was notified of all overtime accrual in a reasonable amount of time, and because Gotham would attempt to obtain additional compensation from the hospital to pay overtime wages, the court determined that the work performed qualified as “suffered or permitted.” Because the court determined that the overtime work qualified as suffered or permitted, it did not matter that the agency was not in the workplace and had not received prior notification of the disputed work (Walsh, 2010).
3. What should the staffing agency done instead? Would the court’s suggestions be workable? Legal?
The staffing agency should have developed and enforced a no-overtime, no-compensation policy. Additionally nurses that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document