context: [A]n individual is subject to FMLA liability when he or she exercises "supervisory authority over the complaining employee and was responsible in whole or part for the alleged violation" while acting in the employer's interest.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 414 U.S. 190, 195
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a company exercising "substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work" of the employees is an employer under the FLSA
citation_a.sentence: Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co., 747 F.2d 966, 972 (5th Cir.1984) (quoting Donovan v. Sabine Irrigation Co., 695 F.2d 190, 195 (5th Cir.1983)); see also Falk v. Bren nan, 414 U.S. 190, 195, 94 S.Ct. 427, 38 L.Ed.2d 406 (1973) (holding that a company exercising “substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work” of the employees is an employer under the FLSA).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 831 F.2d 690, 694
citation_b.parenthetical: discussing individual liability under the FLSA's analogous definition of an "employer"
citation_b.sentence: Riordan v. Kempiners, 831 F.2d 690, 694 (7th Cir.1987) (discussing individual liability under the FLSA’s analogous definition of an “employer”). As the Fifth Circuit explained in interpreting the FLSA’s analogous employer provision, an individual supervisor has adequate authority over the complaining employee when the supervisor “independently exercise[s] control over the work situation.”