Stephen Reinhardt

“ Substantial evidence is "such reasonable evidence as reason-able minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence." Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987) . The record makes clear that the jury's award of punitive damages against the Ackerleys was supported by substantial evidence. The jury heard testimony that the Ackerleys had a long-standing policy of refusing to pay overtime as required by federal law. ”

“ If the regulatory scheme is to effectuate its substantive goals, employees must be free from threats to their job security in retaliation for their good faith assertions of corporate violations of the statute. Section 507 (a) 's protection would be largely hollow if it were restricted to the point of filing a formal complaint with the appropriate external law enforcement agency. Employees should not be discouraged from the normal route of pursuing internal remedies before going public with their good faith allegations. ”

“ In this case, we must determine whether the FLSA's prohibition on terminating an employee who has "filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter" protects an employee who complains to his employer about violations of the Act. The district court, in denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, held that the statute extends protection to employees who make such com-plaints. ”

“ Dixon then told Lambert that if she continued to press for her statutory right to overtime pay:
you will definitely not have a job here, you will be fired. The decision is up to you. Everyone else in the office will love you, but you are jeopardizing your job. Is it worth it to you for a thousand dollars? (SER 195-96) .
In June 1994, the account executives decided that Lambert and plaintiff Chuck Viltz should be their representatives in dealing with the Sonics management. (SER 202) . Boustead confirmed that "Chuck and Laura were the spokespersons for the sales folks." ”

“ Where an individual exercises "control over the nature and structure of the employment relationship," or "economic control" over the relationship, that individual is an employer within the meaning of the Act, and is subject to liability. Id. at 1470. The district court instructed the jury that it could find the individual Ackerleys liable only if it determined that they had a "significant ownership interest with operational control of significant aspects of the corporation's day-to-day functions; the power to hire and fire employees ”

“ Second, the jury had before it evidence that the entire sales group was fired except for the one agent who did not complain about the overtime violations. [13] This evidence makes it wholly implausible that the discharges were the result of a "restructuring" driven by economic considerations. Third, the jury had before it evidence that immediately after the discharge of the entire sales staff (except Novak) , the Sonics announced new job openings for Ticket Sales Account Executives with job descriptions identical to those previously held by the plaintiffs. ”

“ Around this same time, Lambert hired an attorney. On June 17, 1994, Lambert's attorney sent Barry Ackerley (CEO and [p1002] Chairman of the Board of Ackerley Communications) a letter requesting that the Sonics pay Lambert and the other account executives overtime as required by law. The letter also specifically requested that Ackerley instruct his managers "to refrain from retaliation or threats of retaliation against Ms. Lambert and other employees." (ER 118) . On July 6, 1994, Lambert's attorney delivered a complaint for unpaid overtime wages to the Sonics. ”

“ B. Liability as to the other plaintiffs The defendants next argue that even if Lambert's actions were protected by § 215 (a) (3) , there was no evidence that the remaining plaintiffs complained about overtime violations. ”