with the City with regard to most of the Appellants. See Bodie v. City of Columbia, 934 F.2d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (quoting with approval statement in Shepler v. Crucible Fuel Co., 140 F.2d 371, 374 (3d Cir.1944), that “continuance in an employment under a new method of computing pay creates a new contract and that the employee’s consent to the new arrangement may be found from the continuance” (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 566 (citing with approval General Electric Co. v. Porter, 208 F.2d 805, 813 (9th Cir.1953), which held that employees, by continuing to work, implicitly agreed to employer’s unilateral change in method of payment that resulted in employees no longer receiving overtime). But see Mumbower v. Callicott, 526 F.2d 1183, 1187 (8th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); Brennan v. Elmer’s Disposal Serv., 510 F.2d
holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation recognizing that simply having the status of an employee does not make the employer liable to a claim for overtime compensation holding that erisas definition of employer does not include persons other than signatory employers holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 holding that an agreedupon salary for agreedupon hours does not include a statutory overtime premium unless the employer proves that the parties explicitly agreed that it would