Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co, 21

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BURTON
• Citation: 90 L.Ed. 603,66 S.Ct. 379,327 U.S. 173
• Parties: MARTINO v. MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO
• Docket Number: No. 21,21
• Decision Date: 04 February 1946

327 U.S. 173 66 S.Ct. 379 90 L.Ed. 603 MARTINO

v.

MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO.

No. 21. Argued Oct. 8, 9, 1945. Decided Feb. 4, 1946. Rehearing Denied March 4, 1946.

See 327 U.S. 816, 66 S.Ct. 699.

Mr.Daniel D. Carmell, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Page 174

Mr. L.S. Davidow, of Detroit, ich., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The questions here are the same as those in Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, 326 U.S. 657, 66 S.Ct. 413. They are (1) whether respondent's employees, under the facts of this case, are engaged 'in the production of goods for commerce' within the meaning of §§ 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 1062, 1063, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 207 and (2) whether if so engaged they nevertheless, are exempted from the Act because they are engaged in a 'retail or service establishment the greater part of whose selling or servicing is in intrastate commerce' within the meaning of § 13(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(2), 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a)(2). As in the Roland Electrical Co. case, we answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. The respondent also urges as a defense the written agreements which it had renewed from year to year with its employees for a higher number of hours of work per week, before paying overtime, than is prescribed in the Act.

The petitioner sued the respondent in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. He sued for himself as a former employee of the respondent and also in a representative capacity for its other employees similarly situated. He sought to enjoin the respondent from violation of § 15(a)(1)(2)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1)(2)(3), 29 U.S.C.A. § 215(a)(1—3), of the Fair Labor

Page 175

Standards Act of 1938 and to recover under § 16(b) of the Act¹ unpaid overtime compensation together with a like sum as liquidated damages, a reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

The District Court heard the case on the pleadings, stipulations of fact and the petitioner's motion for summary judgment, made several findings of law, ordered that the petitioners recover nothing and dismissed the complaint. 51 F.Supp. 505. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. 145 F.2d 163. This Court has granted a writ of certiorari because of divergence of opinions among the Circuit Courts of Appeals as to the interpretation of § 13(a)(2), and now decides this case in favor of petitioners, upon principles stated in Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, supra.

The respondent, a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Detroit, was engaged in washing windows, painting and similar maintenance work. The employees of the respondent were required in some instances to work longer than 42 hours per week subsequent to October 24, 1939, and longer than 40 hours per week subsequent to October 24, 1940, but were not paid time

Page 176

and a half except for hours worked in excess of 44 hours per week.²

The work of the respondent and of its employees was done within the State of Michigan and, for the most part, on the premises of the respondent's customers. It consisted primarily of cleaning the windows for those customers, always under contracts between them and the respondent. The greater part of this work was done on windows on premises used by respondent's customers in the production of goods for interstate commerce.³ Under the circumstances of this case the cleaning of the windows of industrial plants by the employees of the...