Jump to content
IndyGuy4KI

CP Gets Class Action Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime by Intern

Recommended Posts

Quote

SANDUSKY, Ohio (WOIO) - Cedar Fair Entertainment Company, which owns and operates Cedar Point in Sandusky, is being sued by a former summer intern who claims she was not paid overtime during her employment at the park, even though she claims she sometimes worked up to 60 hours per week.

https://www.cleveland19.com/2020/03/05/former-cedar-point-intern-files-class-action-lawsuit-regarding-unpaid-overtime/?fbclid=IwAR3KhtsUjltnrmPuk9ahY-6p8D8Oz71rCfTKY0TBP2OceP90lcfBEgehPaw

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's going to lose or Cedar Fair is going to go bankrupt paying all of the employees in the past who worked over 40 hours a week overtime.

I regularly worked over 40 hours in both of my stents at the park.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, teenageninja said:

She's going to lose or Cedar Fair is going to go bankrupt paying all of the employees in the past who worked over 40 hours a week overtime.

I regularly worked over 40 hours in both of my stents at the park.

I think there is plenty of in between there. A settlement is most likely and Cedar Fair can probably afford to pay for the overtime/lawsuit for one park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to work 70 hours a week starting out and it would usually be 8am-12am; grated I worked in two different places at morning and night. When your a seasonal employee you can be worked like that. I personally didn't mind because I was there for an internship and I wanted to work. I took an hour lunch and enjoyed where I worked.

Interns also get nicer perks then standard hourly employees.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seasonal employees at seasonal establishments are generally exempt from FLSA overtime rules. If this wasn't the case, staffing long hours at amusement parks would be a lot harder.

I can't find any information about what this employee's classification was or what the specific claims in the lawsuit are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, flightoffear1996 said:

I don't believe over time is owed if the employment is seasonal. 

It's not.  However, if this girl wins it is going to open the door to lots of lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, teenageninja said:

It's not.  However, if this girl wins it is going to open the door to lots of lawsuits.

Ohio minimum wage is also $8.55 an hour and I know for a fact CP interns get payed way over that so I feel like it balances out.

Additionally, I think its subjective to where someone works. I worked in hospitality and loved it so I didn't mind working insane hours, however she might have not liked her job and felt like she was owed more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the exemption

Its seems pretty clear that it would apply to the park, but it does allow for states to override this.  The actual lawsuit might have more details but unless they have something more than not paying overtime for working more than 40 hours a week I do not see this having any chance of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SonofBaconator said:

Ohio minimum wage is also $8.55 an hour and I know for a fact CP interns get payed way over that so I feel like it balances out.

Additionally, I think its subjective to where someone works. I worked in hospitality and loved it so I didn't mind working insane hours, however she might have not liked her job and felt like she was owed more.

I don't think it has anything to do with liking your job.  It's being compensated fairly for your time.

The pay rate is irrelevant.  I was making $13 an hour in Park Services, I knew the rules, I made the decision to work over 40 hours.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, teenageninja said:

I don't think it has anything to do with liking your job.  It's being compensated fairly for your time.

The pay rate is irrelevant.  I was making $13 an hour in Park Services, I knew the rules, I made the decision to work over 40 hours.  

I understand what you're saying but I'm sure this isn't the 1st time this has happened to someone.

However, to my knowledge, it seems like this is the 1st time someone's tried to sue CP over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

From the link @Kenban supplied

Quote

Tests for the Exemption

(a) An "amusement or recreational establishment" will be exempt under Section 13(a)(3) of the Act if it meets either Test (A) or Test (B) as explained in the following paragraphs.

(b) "Does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year." Whether an amusement or recreational establishment "operates" during a particular month is a question of fact, and depends on whether it operates as an amusement or recreational establishment. If an establishment engages only in such activities as maintenance operations or ordering supplies during the "off season" it is not considered to be operating for purposes of the exemption.

(c) 33-1/3 % Test. Because the language of the statute refers to receipts for any six months (not necessarily consecutive months), the monthly average based on total receipts for the six individual months in which the receipts were smallest should be tested against the monthly average for six individual months when the receipts were largest to determine whether this test is met. To illustrate:

An amusement or recreational establishment operated for nine months in the preceding calendar year. The establishment was closed during December, January and February. The total receipts for May, June, July, August, September and October (the six months in which the receipts were largest) totaled $260,000, a monthly average of $43,333; the total receipts for the other six months totaled $75,000, a monthly average of $12,500. Because the average receipts of the latter six months were not more than 33-1/3% of the average receipts for the other six months of the year, the Section 13(a)(3) exemption would apply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it this way:

I was always under the understanding that they were exempt. Clearly the plaintiff has a lawyer that sees an angle in which they believe they can win. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2020 at 4:24 PM, teenageninja said:

It's not.  However, if this girl wins it is going to open the door to lots of lawsuits.

We hungry.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case is listed as a class-action lawsuit which in hand means that any additional parties could join the case to claim damages. The civil complaint would allege that the affected individuals that come forward could exceed 40 people.
 

found by reading the article https://sanduskyregister.com/news/176547/cedar-fair-hit-with-wage-lawsuit/

Also I feel like this is more than just Cedar Point as any Cedar Fair employee at any time could come forward from any park. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seeker441 said:

This case is listed as a class-action lawsuit which in hand means that any additional parties could join the case to claim damages. The civil complaint would allege that the affected individuals that come forward could exceed 40 people.
 

found by reading the article https://sanduskyregister.com/news/176547/cedar-fair-hit-with-wage-lawsuit/

Also I feel like this is more than just Cedar Point as any Cedar Fair employee at any time could come forward from any park. 

The real risk to CF is the precedent it sets. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without more information its really hard to guess just how important this lawsuit might be.  But I suspect this has nothing to do with regular park workers. 

Several items point at this being an extremely narrow lawsuit which might actually have a chance of success but will not make a big difference even if it does succeed.  "The civil complaint alleges that affected individuals could exceed 40 people."  That seems strangely low, not hundreds, not thousands, forty.  Something about this case seems to be limiting the possibly effected individuals.

So I went back and read it again, according to the article she was an "employee of Cedar Point's parent company", while it says she worked at Cedar Point, it suggests she worked for Cedar Fair and not the park directly.  Also the individual was an intern, there are additional laws which govern internships.

Without the lawsuit itself I am not certain what special circumstance exists in this case, but I do not believe this lawsuit is very important.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...