Lewis v. Virginia Engineering Co., Civ. A. No. 93.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 93. |
| Citation | 80 F. Supp. 886 |
| Parties | LEWIS et al. v. VIRGINIA ENGINEERING CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Walter E. Hoffman, of Norfolk, and H. Ames Drummond, of Accomac, for plaintiffs.
R. Arthur Jett and Roy L. Sykes, both of Norfolk, for defendant.
This case is based upon a complaint filed by Harry R. Lewis, and others, in behalf of themselves and other employees of Virginia Engineering Company, Incorporated, similarly situated, for unpaid overtime compensation and additional sums constituting liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to Section 216(b) of 29 U. S.C.A., the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Executive Order No. 9240, 40 U. S.C.A. § 326 note.
It is alleged that the defendant is a Virginia corporation engaged in the manufacture and production of goods for commerce and the construction of an airport known as the Chincoteague Outlying Airport, in Accomac County, Virginia. It is alleged that the airport and facilities are made from raw materials, substantially all being shipped from points outside the State and is and was an essential instrumentality of interstate commerce, constructed pursuant to emergency conditions existing by virtue of the First War Powers Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 601 et seq. The plaintiffs were employed as watchmen or guards, who also performed numerous other duties in connection with the operation and it is contended they were engaged in interstate commerce. There were allegations to the effect that the functions performed by the plaintiffs were an essential part of interstate commerce and that they worked longer than forty hours per week and were entitled to a greater rate of pay for such time in excess of forty hours.
A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by the defendant, in which motion it was denied that the plaintiffs were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, and setting up, among other defenses, a denial that the plaintiffs were under the control and supervision of defendant or that they were employees of such defendant.
Certain affidavits were filed in support of the motion. From those affidavits the following facts appear:
The defendant entered into a contract with the United States for the construction of an air field. R. C. Biener was Project Manager of the defendant. Commander O. A. Sandquist was the officer in charge of construction and represented the Navy Department on the project. Commander Sandquist employed Gaston A. Fortin and directed him to employ, organize and set up a force of security guards to safeguard the interest and safety of the Navy Department at the location for the period of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Albany
... ... Hayes, of Fresno, Cal., for defendant Southeran Realty Co ... Claude L. Rowe, of Fresno, Cal., for ... ...
-
Fruco Const. Co. v. McClelland
...guards were employees of the government within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. See, also, Lewis v. Virginia Engineering Co., Inc., D.C., 80 F.Supp. 886. When the contract with the Burns Agency was cancelled in 1941, the Constructing Quartermaster's office assumed complete charg......
-
Costner v. United States, 167-79C.
...Co. v. McClelland, 192 F.2d 241 (8th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 945, 72 S.Ct. 558, 96 L.Ed. 703 (1952); Lewis v. Virginia Eng'r Co., 80 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Va.1947). 25 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 26 See Fruco Constr. Co. v. McClelland, supra note 24, 192 F.2d at 244. 27 See Goutos v. United ......
-
Urban v. Continental Convention & Show Management
...Minn., 67 N.W.2d 400.5 1 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 401.6 See, e.g., Bowman v. Pace Co., 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 858; Lewis v. Virginia Engineering Co., Inc., D.C.E.D.Va., 80 F.Supp. 886.7 Walling v. Rutherford Food Corp., 10 Cir., 156 F.2d 513, 516, and cases cited, affirmed in part and modified in ......