Wirtz v. HARDIN & COMPANY, INC.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 21847.,21847. |
| Parties | W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. HARDIN & COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bessie Margolin, Associate Sol., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Robert E. Nagle, Anastasia T. Dunau, Attorneys, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Attorney, for appellant.
John A. Lusk, Jr., Gadsden, Ala., William F. Gardner, Birmingham, Ala., Lusk, Swann, Burns & Stivender, Gadsden, Ala., Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner & Clark, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellees.
Before JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama holding that certain business corporations do not together constitute an enterprise within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., as amended in 1961,1 dismissing the complaint and denying requested relief as to some of the businesses and limiting the relief granted to designated employees of one of the business organizations involved.
The action was brought by the Secretary of Labor under § 17 of the Act to enjoin alleged violations of its provisions with reference to minimum wage, overtime and record keeping requirements, and to enjoin the continued withholding of wages alleged to be owing to certain employees of the appellees. After a full evidentiary hearing, during which a number of witnesses appeared and substantial documentary evidence was presented, the District Court entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that under the facts of the case the businesses involved do not constitute related activities performed through unified operation or common control for a common business purpose, and that the appellees do not constitute an enterprise within the meaning of the Act.
1 Sections 3(r) and 3(s) (1) read in pertinent part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland v. Wirtz
...of an enterprise in interstate commerce may consist of importation. E.g., Wirtz v. Hardin & Co., D.C., 253 F.Supp. 579, aff'd, 5 Cir., 359 F.2d 792 (FLSA); N.L.R.B. v. Baker Hotel, 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 528 27 The dissent suggests that by use of an 'enterprise concept' such as that we have uphel......
-
Marshall v. Shan-An-Dan, Inc.
...if defendant is an enterprise within the meaning of the Act. Wirtz v. Hardin and Co., 253 F.Supp. 579 (M.D.Ala.1964), aff'd, 359 F.2d 792 (5th Cir.1966)." The Magistrate set out his principal basis for finding related activities: The franchisor and franchisee in the instant case engaged in ......
-
Wirtz v. Harper Buffing Machine Company
...to trial does not prevent the issuance of an injunction, Wirtz v. Hardin & Co., 253 F.Supp. 579 (N.D.Ala. 1964), aff'd per curiam, 359 F.2d 792 (5th Cir. 1966), nor does the fact that the defendants have committed but "one unexplained offense." Goldberg v. Cockrell, 303 F.2d at Finally, in ......
-
Brennan v. Carl Roessler, Incorporated
...compliance with the Act is not determinative. See Wirtz v. Hardin & Co., 253 F.Supp. 579 (N.D.Ala.1964), aff'd per curiam, 359 F.2d 792 (5 Cir. 1966). As the court stated in Harper Buffing, supra, p. 382 of 280 In determining whether to issue such an injunction, the light burden it would im......