
    On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed January 24, and respondent’s response to petition for reconsideration filed January 27,
    reconsideration allowed, former disposition (282 Or App 774, 387 P3d 381 (2016)) adhered to June 21, 2017
    Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent.
    
    Multnomah County Circuit Court
    071113531; A150540
    398 P3d 360
    Roy Pulvers and Holland & Knight LLP for petition.
    A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response.
    Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
   PER CURIAM

Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., petitions for reconsideration of our decision, Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., 282 Or App 774, 387 P3d 381 (2016), concerning the disposition of its appeal. Defendant argues that concepts of waiver or invited error should preclude a new trial on the off-the-clock claim penalties and compel a defense verdict on that issue as a matter of law. We allow the petition for reconsideration to state that we reject those arguments. Without further discussion, we adhere to our original decision.

Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered to.  