Folding Furniture Works, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin
| Decision Date | 18 August 1924 |
| Citation | 300 F. 991 |
| Parties | FOLDING FURNITURE WORKS, Inc., v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
A. L Smongeski, of Stevens Point, Wis., and Leon B. Lamfrom and Benjamin Poss, both of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Fred C Seibold, of Madison, Wis., and J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Joseph Padway and Charles Babcock, both of Milwaukee, Wis., for Wisconsin Federation of Labor.
Before EVAN A. EVANS, Circuit Judge, and GEIGER and LUSE, District judges.
Plaintiff a Wisconsin corporation, doing business and employing labor at Stevens Point, Wis., and alleging facts which bring it within the scope and operation of the so-called Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law (St. Wis. 1923, c. 104), attacks the constitutionality of this act so far as it regulates or makes provision for the determination and fixation of minimum wages for adult women. It specifically disavowed, on oral argument any intention to attack that part of the law which applied to the wages of minors.
The bill also alleged that a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour had been fixed by defendant, and that plaintiff was able to employ adult women, not physically or mentally handicapped, for less than 25 cents per hour, but, if it did so, it would be subjected to repeated criminal prosecutions, as the act makes each day's employment a separate offense.
The constitutionality of the act, the sole question in the case, is entirely dependent upon the applicability of the decision in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 43 Sup.Ct. 394, 67 L.Ed. 785, 24 A.L.R. 1238. A careful comparison of the District of Columbia Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 3421 1/2-3421 1/2w) with the Wisconsin Act has failed to bring out any vital, or in fact substantial, difference between them, and we are constrained to accept the law as announced in the majority opinion in the Adkins Case.
If the rule announced in that case is to be modified, limited, restricted, rejected, or reversed, as counsel urge it should be, it must rest with the court that announced it to do so. Until so modified or reversed, it is idle for this court to engage in a discussion of the relative merits of the majority and minority opinions.
Some urge was made at the beginning of the argument that no emergency was shown, and that defendant was unprepared to proceed, and could not be prepared in advance of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morehead v. People of State of New York Tipaldo
...Page 618 dustrial Relations, 119 Kan. 12, 237 P. 1041; Stevenson v. St. Clair, 161 Minn. 444, 201 N.W. 629. See Folding Furniture Works v. Industrial Commission (D.C.) 300 F. 991; People v. Successors of Laurnaga & Co., 32 Porto Rico, The New York court's decision conforms to ours in the Ad......
-
People ex rel. Tipaldo v. Morehead
...Topeka Laundry Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 119 Kan. 12, 237 P. 1041, 47 A.L.R. 208;Folding Furniture Works, Inc., v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin (D.C.) 300 F. 991;Stevenson v. St. Clair, 161 Minn. 444, 201 N.W. 629; cf. Holcombe v. Creamer, 231 Mass. 99, 120 N.E. 354. The o......
-
Stevenson v. St. Clair
...useless to discuss the first proposition advanced by appellant. It may well be left, as was done by the court in Folding Furniture Works v. Industrial Com. (D. C.) 300 F. 991. That the provisions of our act relating to the minimum wages for minors are repugnant to the federal Constitution w......
-
Stevenson v. Wesley St. Clair
... ... Folding" Furniture Works v. Industrial Com. 300 F ... \xC2" ... ...