Goldberg v. Cockrell, No. 18983.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBROWN and WISDOM, Circuit , and DE VANE
Citation303 F.2d 811
PartiesArthur J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. Earl R. COCKRELL and Carra Bell Cockrell, doing business as Cockrell Banana Company, Appellees.
Decision Date22 June 1962
Docket NumberNo. 18983.

303 F.2d 811 (1962)

Arthur J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant,
v.
Earl R. COCKRELL and Carra Bell Cockrell, doing business as Cockrell Banana Company, Appellees.

No. 18983.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 1962.


303 F.2d 812

Bessie Margolin, Morton Liftin, Asst. Solicitor, Dept. of Labor, Isabelle R. Cappello, Atty., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Charles Donahue, Solicitor of Labor, Jacob I. Karro, Attorneys, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Attorney, for appellant.

W. P. Mitchell, R. N. McNutt, Mitchell, McNutt & Bush, Tupelo, Miss., for appellees.

Before BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and DE VANE, District Judge.

WISDOM, Circuit Judge.

The Secretary of Labor brought this suit to enjoin Earl R. Cockrell and Carra Bell Cockrell, doing business as the Cockrell Banana Company, from further violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Secretary alleged that the defendants-appellees had violated the Act's minimum-wage, overtime, and record-keeping regulations, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 207 and 211. The district court found that the Cockrells had violated the Act but declined to issue an injunction as prayed for by the Secretary. We vacate the order below and remand the case with instructions that the injunction be issued.

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor first investigated the Cockrell Banana Company in 1953. It conducted a second investigation in February 1958 and a third in September 1958. Each time it informed the defendants that it had found violations of the minimum-wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Each time the defendants indicated that they would comply in the future. At no time have they denied that they are subject to the regulations imposed by this Act. In this proceeding the Cockrells acknowledge that their practices prior to 1958 were unlawful, but they assert that since the third investigation there have been no further violations. At that time the defendants instituted a system under which time sheets were distributed to their employees and each employee was directed to record his hours worked each day.1 The employees signed their time sheets and turned them in each week. On the time sheet immediately preceding the space for the worker's signature was printed the statement: "I hereby certify that I have entered above the correct time worked and have received full payment as shown. I am due no back pay." Various employees testified that they

303 F.2d 813
filled out these sheets according to what they were being paid without any attempt to reflect the hours actually worked. Two employees stated that the reason for this practice was that they could not get paid for the hours actually worked. One employee explained that once when he had turned in a record stating his true number of hours it was "kicked back" on him. He said also that when he had been given a pay raise the number of hours which he recorded was increased, although there was no change in the number of hours he worked. One of the time sheets introduced showed daily hours adding up to 56 hours for the week, but the weekly total written in, on which the employee's pay was based, was only 52. Several employees testified that often they had worked a greater number of hours than the hours recorded without receiving any additional pay. The appellees...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • Herman v. Hector I. Nieves Transp., Inc., No. Civ. 96-2479JAF.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • February 15, 2000
    ...Act, he should bear the burden of future compliance. Hodgson v. Parke, 324 F.Supp. 1297, 1300 (S.D.Tex.1971) (citing Goldberg v. Cockrell, 303 F.2d 811 (5th Cir.1962)); see also Hodgson v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n of Broward County, Fla., 455 F.2d 818, 826 (5th Cir.1972); DialAmeri......
  • Sullivan v. PJ United, Inc., 7:13-cv-01275-LSC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • July 19, 2018
    ...of the hours worked by his employees, and the employer cannot transfer his statutory duty to his employees." Goldberg v. Cockrell , 303 F.2d 811, 812 n.1 (5th Cir. 1962).3 As a preliminary matter, the Court must address an argument that Defendants have repeatedly raised that it is Sull......
  • Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc., Civil Action No. H–12–2726.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • August 12, 2014
    ...of the amount of overtime worked by those of its employees.... [citation omitted]”).10 See also [38 F.Supp.3d 865] Goldberg v. Cockrell, 303 F.2d 811, 812 n. 1 (5th Cir.1963) (“ ‘[W]hile there is nothing to prevent an employer from delegating to his employees the duty of keeping a record of......
  • Mohammadi v. Augustine Nwabuisi, Rose Nwabuisi, Res. Health Servs., Inc., Cv. No. SA:12–CV–42–DAE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • January 2, 2014
    ...at his peril. He cannot escape the record keeping provisions of the Act by delegating that duty to his employees.” Goldberg v. Cockrell, 303 F.2d 811, 814 n. 1 (5th Cir.1962); accord Wirtz v. Miss. Publishers Corp., 364 F.2d 603 (5th Cir.1966). 70. Normally, “an employee who brings suit for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 cases
  • Herman v. Hector I. Nieves Transp., Inc., No. Civ. 96-2479JAF.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • February 15, 2000
    ...Act, he should bear the burden of future compliance. Hodgson v. Parke, 324 F.Supp. 1297, 1300 (S.D.Tex.1971) (citing Goldberg v. Cockrell, 303 F.2d 811 (5th Cir.1962)); see also Hodgson v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n of Broward County, Fla., 455 F.2d 818, 826 (5th Cir.1972); DialAmeri......
  • Sullivan v. PJ United, Inc., 7:13-cv-01275-LSC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • July 19, 2018
    ...of the hours worked by his employees, and the employer cannot transfer his statutory duty to his employees." Goldberg v. Cockrell , 303 F.2d 811, 812 n.1 (5th Cir. 1962).3 As a preliminary matter, the Court must address an argument that Defendants have repeatedly raised that it is Sull......
  • Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc., Civil Action No. H–12–2726.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • August 12, 2014
    ...of the amount of overtime worked by those of its employees.... [citation omitted]”).10 See also [38 F.Supp.3d 865] Goldberg v. Cockrell, 303 F.2d 811, 812 n. 1 (5th Cir.1963) (“ ‘[W]hile there is nothing to prevent an employer from delegating to his employees the duty of keeping a record of......
  • Mohammadi v. Augustine Nwabuisi, Rose Nwabuisi, Res. Health Servs., Inc., Cv. No. SA:12–CV–42–DAE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • January 2, 2014
    ...at his peril. He cannot escape the record keeping provisions of the Act by delegating that duty to his employees.” Goldberg v. Cockrell, 303 F.2d 811, 814 n. 1 (5th Cir.1962); accord Wirtz v. Miss. Publishers Corp., 364 F.2d 603 (5th Cir.1966). 70. Normally, “an employee who brings suit for......
  • 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