Fullerton v. Lamm

Decision Date26 September 1945
Citation177 Or. 655,163 P.2d 941,165 P.2d 63
PartiesFULLERTON <I>v.</I> LAMM ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

BELT, C.J., dissenting.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Statutes

19. The statute limiting actions for recovery of overtime or premium pay including penalties being invalid as applied to actions under Fair Labor Standards Act, the savings clause governing claims which had accrued at time of enactment of the statute, though in itself free from constitutional objections, cannot be separated from rest of the statute and given effect but falls with it.

Statutes

20. Generally, a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another part, and if the invalid part is severable from the rest, the portion which is constitutional may stand while that which is unconstitutional is rejected.

Statutes

21. In determining whether unconstitutional part of a statute is severable from the rest, the inquiry is primarily one of legislative intention.

                  Recovery of wages and penalties under Federal Fair Labor
                Standards Act and state acts in conformity therewith, note, 130
                A.L.R. 272; see also 31 Am. Jur. 1061; 11 Am. Jur. 834; 59 C.J
                Statutes, § 205; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 98
                

IN BANC.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County.

G.F. SKIPWORTH, Judge.

Action by J.P. Fullerton against W.E. Lamm and others, copartners doing business as Deschutes Lumber Company, to recover overtime pay and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

REVERSED. REHEARING DENIED.

Herbert W. Lombard, of Cottage Grove, for appellant.

Wilber P. Riddlesbarger, of Eugene (Harris, Bryson & Riddlesbarger, of Eugene, on the brief), for respondents.

R.N. Kavanaugh, R.R. Morris, David L. Davies, Hugh L. Biggs, Hart, Spencer, McCulloch & Rockwood, Hampson, Koerner, Young & Swett, Carl C. Donaugh and J. Mason Dillard, all of Portland, amici curiae.

LUSK, J.

This case presents the question of the validity of Ch. 265, Oregon Laws 1943, prescribing certain limitations with respect to actions for the recovery of overtime or premium pay and penalties authorized by any statute.

Plaintiff sued to recover overtime pay and penalties pursuant to the provisions of Public Law No. 718, 75th Congress, known as the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938", (hereinafter referred to as F.L.S.A.) 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. The act covers employees "engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce". Section 6 establishes minimum wages to be paid by employers to such employees. Section 7 establishes maximum hours for such employees and prohibits employment in excess of the number of hours specified "unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed." Section 16 (b) provides:

"Any employer who violates the provisions of section 6 or section 7 of this Act shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated, or such employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain such action for and in behalf of all employees similarly situated. The court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action."

Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Circuit Court for Lane County on October 13, 1943. He alleged that he was employed by the defendants in the production of goods for commerce from April 19, 1939, to September 20, 1942, at various rates of pay which are stated, and that during that period he worked overtime (i.e., in excess of the legal maximum fixed by the F.L.S.A.) a specified number of hours which, at one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed, entitled him to receive from his employers the sum of $6,239.71, only $124.57 of which had been paid. He asked judgment for $6,115.41, the difference between these two amounts, and an additional equal sum as liquidated damages, and $1,200.00 attorneys' fees. The defendants demurred on the ground that the action was not commenced within the time limited by Ch. 265, Oregon Laws 1943. The circuit court, being of the opinion that the action was barred, sustained the demurrer and entered judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff has appealed.

Chapter 265, Oregon Laws 1943, took effect March 10, 1943, and is as follows:

"AN ACT

"To limit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Jones v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • February 21, 1996
    ......at 267 n. 2, 911 P.2d at 1257 n. 2, do not advance its argument. Fullerton v. Lamm, 177 Or. 655, 163 P.2d 941, 165 P.2d 63 (1946), and State v. Jackson, 224 Or. 337, 356 P.2d 495 (1960), deal with codifications of common law ......
  • Littlewolf v. Hodel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 17, 1988
    ...a statute of limitations with a clause designed to afford additional time in which to sue on accrued causes of action (Fullerton v. Lamm, 177 Or. 655, 163 P.2d 941 (1945)). Whatever arguments plaintiffs may once have been able to advance against use of the date of certification as the statu......
  • Gilbertson v. Culinary Alliance and Bartenders' Union, Local No. 643, A.F. of L.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 30, 1955
    ......         Substantially, these are the same rules applied by the courts in the absence of statute. Fullerton v. Lamm, 177 Or. 655, 163 P.2d 941, 165 P.2d 63, and cases there cited. We are unable to see any necessary interdependence between § 17 and the ......
  • State v. Buck
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • October 21, 1953
    ...... Fullerton v. Lamm, supra, 177 Or. , at page 670, 163 P.2d at page 947 [165 P.2d 63]. When the legislative intent has been ascertained, it should be given ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT