Lebleu v. TEMPLE ASSOCIATES
Decision Date | 30 October 1953 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4247,4159. |
Citation | 115 F. Supp. 934 |
Parties | LEBLEU et al. v. TEMPLE ASSOCIATES, Inc. BILLEAUDEAU v. TEMPLE ASSOCIATES, Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Tate & Fusilier, Ville Platte, La., for plaintiffs.
Dubuisson & Dubuisson, Opelousas, La., Peavy & Shands, Lufkin, Tex., for defendant.
Five plaintiffs1 sue defendant here under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, §§ 1-19, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219, for minimum wages and overtime pay.
The actions arise from work performed upon a construction project. On April 5, 1952 defendant's predecessor2 entered into a contract with the Housing Authority of the city of Ville Platte, Louisiana, in which it agreed to "furnish all labor, material" * * * etc., * * * "and perform all work required for the construction and completion" * * * of two low-rent housing projects. Construction was completed February 18, 1953.
Plaintiffs allege they were employed by defendant or its predecessor, for various periods during the construction, as "day and night guards or night watchmen". Their duties, they assert, required them to guard (among other things) defendant's construction office * * * "in which office were maintained pay-roll records, time sheets, and other matters pertaining to the labor force, which were regularly shipped to Dibold, Texas, and to other points outside of Louisiana, as well as invoices, plans, specifications, and other matters and materials regularly shipped to and from Ville Platte, Louisiana, and points outside of Louisiana; in addition, as part of their duties, plaintiffs often received lumber shipped from Dibold, Texas, and the invoices therefor, and guarded the Texas employees unloading same, and were responsible for filing the invoices for such lumber and other materials received in the office-building on the premises, and were often present in the course of their duties when other shipments or supplies were being unloaded or loaded for shipment to and from points of Louisiana."
They were paid, they say, only $35 for a work week of eighty-four hours or longer, far less than the minimum hourly rate3 and without overtime pay4 as prescribed by the Act. They sue here for the differences, plus interest, liquidated damages and attorney's fees.
Defendant has moved to dismiss, for failure to state valid claims, and for summary judgment, the latter motion being supported by affidavits. We here consider the motions together, as if only for summary judgment.
It is urged, in support of the motions, that the housing units were "new construction not yet dedicated to interstate commerce", and that employees on such projects do not come within the purview of the Act. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, earnestly contend it is the nature of the employees' duties, not of their employer's activities, which governs. Since, they say, their duties here encompassed direct contact with and responsibilities affecting items of interstate commerce,5 they feel their right to recovery is established.
From the pleadings and briefs it is evident—indeed, plainly apparent—there is no dispute as to the facts of the case. It is only as to the legal effects of the facts that plaintiffs and defendant differ.
Until Murphey v. Reed, 1948, 335 U.S. 865, 69 S.Ct. 105, 93 L.Ed. 410, there was some slight doubt as to the law on this rather narrow issue. By that decision the question has been set at rest.
The Murphey decision came in a short per curiam in which certiorari was granted to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Reed v. Murphey, 168 F.2d 257. It read:
(Emphasis supplied.)
To understand the holding fully the facts disclosed by the Court of Appeals' decision must be examined. Defendants in that case had entered into two cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts with the Navy Department for construction of certain naval installations on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
To continue reading
Request your trial