June 24, 2019

Archives for January 5, 2012

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 1/5/12

On Thursday, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued six published opinions and eight unpublished opinions.

Published

People v. Davis

People v. Morales

Shirk v. Forsmark

Gessler v. Doty

Colorado State Board of Pharmacy v. Priem

Farm Deals, LLLP v. State of Colorado

Summaries of published cases are forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Governor Hickenlooper Appoints Rowles-Stokes to Arapahoe County Court Bench

On Thursday, January 5, 2012, Governor John Hickenlooper announced his appointment of Cheryl Rowles-Stokes to serve as a county court judge in the Eighteenth Judicial District. Her appointment is effective immediately.

Rowles-Stokes will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Ethan D. Feldman.

Rowles-Stokes, of Aurora, currently serves as the Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District and directs the Economic Crimes Unit, where she has served since 2001.

Previously, Rowles-Stokes was a human resources professional at High Speed Access Corp. and Rifkin & Associates. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Colorado Christian College, her master’s degree from Jones International University, and her law degree from the Strum College of Law at the University of Denver.

Tenth Circuit: If Employee’s Primary Duty Is Related to Emergency Response or Law Enforcement, Entitled to FLSA Protections

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Maestas v. Day & Zimmerman, LLC on Wednesday, January 4, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. Petitioners were officers in a private security force that protects Los Alamos National Laboratory. They contend that their employer, Respondent, improperly classified them as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties disagree over which of Petitioners’ “job duties is ‘primary,’ a determination essential to the classification of their positions under FLSA.” The district court concluded that all Petitioners were exempt executive employees and granted summary judgment to Respondent.

The Court disagreed with the district court’s reasoning. “In order to fall under the executive, administrative, or combination exemptions to FLSA’s overtime protections, an employee’s primary duty must be managerial or administrative, or a combination of the two. . . . However, if an employee’s primary duty is related to emergency response or law enforcement, the employee is entitled to FLSA’s protections.” The Court held that a dispute over the classification of job duties presents a question of fact rather than an issue of law, and that “an employee who supervises subordinates while also conducting front-line law enforcement work performs a non-managerial task. Because there remains a genuine dispute as to whether three of the plaintiffs had this task as their primary duty, summary judgment was proper only against [one] plaintiff  and improper as to the other plaintiffs.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/4/12

On Wednesday, January 4, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Wallace v. Microsoft Corp.

Watkins v. Craft

United States v. Sunday

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.