Goldberg v. Mathews
Citation | 303 F.2d 814 |
Decision Date | 22 June 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 19241.,19241. |
Parties | Arthur J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. William C. MATHEWS and Henry M. Whitfield, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Morton Liftin, Asst. Solicitor, Dept. of Labor, Beate Bloch, Atty., Dept. of Labor, Charles Donahue, Solicitor of Labor, Beverly R. Worrell, Regional Attorney, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
C. R. Bolton, J. D. Doty, Bolton & Doty, Tupelo, Miss., Attorneys for Appellees.
Before BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and DE VANE, District Judge.
The Secretary of Labor brought this suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants-appellees from violations of the minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 207, and 211. At the trial the district court granted a continuance during which the defendants were ordered to bring their practices into compliance with the Act. A year later the district court held a trial, found that no significant violations had been committed during the intervening year, and denied the petition for an injunction. We affirm, though with misgivings as to the procedure followed by the district court.
William C. Mathews and Henry M. Whitfield operate a general construction business in Tupelo, Mississippi, under the name of M & W Construction Company. In 1957 representatives from the Department of Labor investigated their employment practices and notified them that these practices did not meet the legal requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants answered that they were not interested in receiving advice from the Department of Labor and that they intended to determine for themselves whether they were subject to the Act. In September 1957 the Secretary of Labor filed a complaint against the defendants alleging violations with respect to four employees at the main office in Tupelo. The defendants responded with a full denial. On the day set for trial the defendants moved for a continuance. They explained that they had learned within the preceding week that the plaintiff intended to present evidence of other violations in addition to those listed in the complaint, and they declared that they intended to bring their practices into compliance with the Act. Over plaintiff's objection, the district court ordered a ninety day continuance at the end of which the defendants were to report to the court whether their practices conformed to the law and the court would determine whether an injunction should issue. Further proceedings were not actually held, however, until a year later. During the intervening period the Department of Labor made additional investigations of the defendants and sought to persuade them to consent to the issuance of an injunction ordering them to comply with the law. The defendants refused to agree to the injunction, but, apparently for the first time, did cooperate with the plaintiff in bringing their practices into line. In September the plaintiff amended his complaint to include several additional offenses, and the case went to trial on January 30, 1961.
The parties do not dispute the trial judge's findings of fact on any significant point, and we believe that substantial evidence supports those findings. The court ruled that the defendants had violated the minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements of the Act with respect to numerous employees in several different capacities.1 In each of these cases it should have been quite clear to the defendants that the employees involved were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and that they were not being paid in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The court found, however, that there had been no significant violations during the period of the continuance. It concluded:
In our disposition of this appeal, we are influenced by the particular facts in the history of this case which shape its posture at the appellate level. The salient features are that the district court held this case under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wirtz v. Soft Drinks of Shreveport, Inc.
...Act the district court as a general rule should issue an injunction restraining the employer from further violations." Goldberg v. Mathews, 303 F.2d 814, 817. 11 The Ninth Circuit, in Wirtz v. Malthor, Inc., 391 F.2d 1, (9th Cir., 1968) decided that there were two purposes for the Section a......
-
Perez v. Sophia's Kalamazoo, LLC, Case No. 1:14-CV-772
...from further violations.'" Wirtz v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., 364 F.2d 603, 606-07 (5th Cir. 1966) (quoting Goldberg v. Mathews, 303 F.2d 814, 817 (5th Cir. 1962). Even though some record-keeping violations of the FLSA have been established onthe cross-motions for summary judgment, entr......
-
Wirtz v. Harper Buffing Machine Company
... ... Nunn's Battery & Elec. Co. v. Goldberg, 298 F.2d 516, 520 (5th Cir. 1962). Unless both sides clearly understand this to be so, it cannot be said with any certainty that the purposes of the ... ...
-
Wirtz v. Sullivan
...of an injunction, and such denial will be reversed as erroneous. Goldberg v. Cockrell, 5th Cir. 1962, 303 F.2d 811; Goldberg v. Mathews, 5th Cir. 1962, 303 F.2d 814; Mitchell v. Pidcock, 5th Cir. 1962, 299 F.2d 281; Mitchell v. Ballenger Paving Co., 5th Cir. 1962, 299 F.2d 297, cert. den. 3......