Hodgson v. H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc., 29389.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 29389.,29389. |
| Citation | 433 F.2d 918 |
| Parties | James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. MORGAN DANIEL SEAFOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
L. H. Silberman, Solicitor of Labor, Bessie Margolin, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., M. J. Parmenter, Regional Sol., Betty Jo Christian, Truett E. Bean, Trial Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Dallas, Tex., Carin Ann Clauss, Atty., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Robert S. Bambace, Kenneth R. Carr, Houston, Tex., of counsel, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before COLEMAN, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201, et seq., amended from time to time during the thirty-two years of its existence, engenders questions in this case which have not previously been answered at the appellate level in any court.
The Secretary of Labor charged that H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc., at its shrimp packing plant in Port Lavaca, Texas, has compelled, and is compelling, its employees, as an essential condition of their employment, to obtain health certificates and to wear white uniforms. On this account the wages received by the employees are reduced below the statutory minimum. The Secretary's suit against H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc. further asserted that since the uniforms had to be washed every day and to comply with sanitary requirements of both local and federal law applicable to the employer's business, the employees should be compensated for the time spent in washing these uniforms, although that work takes place away from the place of employment.
Part of the relief sought in the District Court would require the employer to pay the employees some $31,000 in "back wages" because of the items hereinabove mentioned.
Following a trial, the District Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. This appeal followed. We remand for necessary factual findings.
Appropriate federal regulations require all employees at shrimp packing plants to , Circular 308 of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration require that food handling employees "must wear clean outer garments, maintain a high degree of personal cleanliness, and conform to hygienic practices while on duty, to the extent necessary to prevent contamination of food products".
An ordinance of the City of Port Lavaca requires "all employees shall wear clean outer garments and shall keep their hands clean at all times while engaged in handling food, drink, utensils, or equipment".
The Federal regulations, Circular 308, supra, require the employees to wear clean outer garments. The regulations express the preference that such garments should be white but do not mandatorily require uniforms or any specified color of clothing. The specific language is that the outer garments, covering employees' personal clothing, shall be clean.
The ultimate issue then is whether the employer, H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc., for the benefit of the company, required the employees to wear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Woods
...province of the finder of fact, in this instance, the court, subject only to the clearly erroneous rule. Hodgson v. H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc., 433 F.2d 918, 920 (5th Cir. 1970). Similarly, the trial court's finding of fact on a motion to suppress must be accepted unless clearly errone......
-
Nguyen v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.
...To be sure, the Court lacks authority to "render an advisory opinion on hypothetical or abstract facts." Hodgson v. H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc. , 433 F.2d 918, 920 (5th Cir. 1970). This rule "ensure[s] that federal courts determine specific disputes between parties, rather than hypothet......
-
Rodriguez v. Jones
...of the court sitting without a jury, subject only to the clearly erroneous rule of Fed.R.Civ. P. 52(a). Hodgson v. H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc., 5 Cir., 1970, 433 F.2d 918, 920. Section 1983 of Title 42, U.S.C., provides a remedy in damages against every person acting under color of stat......
-
Tuxedo Contractors, Inc. v. Swindell-Dressler Co.
...States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746, 766 (1948).36 Hodgson v. H. Morgan Daniel Seafoods, Inc., 433 F.2d 918, 920 (5th Cir. 1970); Thomas E. Snyder Sons Co. v. Industrial Molasses Corp., 270 F.2d 875, 876 (7th Cir. 1959); see United States v......