Emerson v. Mary Lincoln Candies, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1941
• Citation: 38 N.E.2d 234,287 N.Y. 577
• Parties: Harold EMERSON, Respondent, v. MARY LINCOLN CANDIES, Inc., Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

287 N.Y. 577

38 N.E.2d 234

Harold EMERSON, Respondent,

v.MARY LINCOLN CANDIES, Inc., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 261 App.Div. 879, 26 N.Y.S.2d 489.

Action by Harold Emerson against Mary Lincoln Candies, Incorporated, to recover twice the amount claimed to be due plaintiff for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. s 201 et seq. The Supreme Court, Erie County, 173 Misc. 531, 17 N.Y.S.2d 851, held insufficient and struck out defenses alleging that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of the action because it was one for a penalty incurred under the laws of the United States of which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, alleging that from a date before enactment of the act to a date subsequent thereto plaintiff was employed by defendant as a stationary engineer under a contract whereby he was to devote such time as was necessary to the duties of a stationary engineer at a fixed weekly wage, alleging that after an investigation, defendant offered an amount found due plaintiff for overtime but that plaintiff refused, and alleging the unconstitutionality of the act. That court held sufficient for pleading purposes defenses alleging that plaintiff was engaged in an executive capacity or in a professional capacity so that his employment was exempted from the operation of the act.

From a judgment of the Appellate Division, 261 App.Div. 879, 26 N.Y.S.2d 489, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, 174 Misc. 353, 20 N.Y.S.2d 570, and affirming the order striking out separate defenses in defendant's original answer, defendant appeals contending that the action fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, that state courts accepting jurisdiction of an employer's action under the act are not bound to render a verdict for twice the amount of overtime found, that the enactment of the act did not operate automatically to impress on all existing employment contracts a provision that thereafter all employees covered by the act must be deemed as working on the basis of a 44-hour week as of October 24, 1938, for the purpose of determining their regular rate of pay, that plaintiff's overtime should have been calculated in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, and that he was a bona fide executive or administrative employee and a bona fide professional employee exempt from the provisions of the act...