Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 19359.,19359. |
| Citation | 417 F.2d 583 |
| Parties | George P. SHULTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. TARHEEL COALS, INC. et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Carin Clauss, Nashville, Tenn., Harold C. Nystrom, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Associate Solicitor, Robert E. Nagle, Le Roy Morgan, Attorneys, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., Jeter S. Ray, Regional Attorney, Nashville Tenn., on brief, for appellant.
J. W. Craft, Jr., Hazard, Ky., Craft & Haynes, Hazard, Ky., on brief for appellees.
Before WEICK and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and BROWN*, District Judge.
The Secretary of Labor brought a civil contempt proceeding charging appellees with failing to comply with an injunction prohibiting them from violating the minimum wage and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.). The Secretary sought an order requiring appellees to purge themselves of contempt by making restitution of unpaid minimum wages and by paying a compensatory fine. The Secretary further alleged that appellees had also violated the overtime and discriminatory discharge provisions of the Act, and he sought an enlargement of the injunction to prohibit such violations and sought restitution of unpaid overtime compensation and restitution of earnings lost by the employee who was discriminatorily discharged.
At the conclusion of the Secretary's proof, the District Judge, on motion of appellees, dismissed the proceeding. He made no findings or conclusions except to indicate from the bench that the proof was not sufficiently definite as to the hours worked to support restitution of minimum wage or overtime compensation.
There was evidence that the appellees' records were inadequate. There was also evidence that employees had in fact performed work for which they were improperly compensated both as to minimum and overtime compensation and from which the amount and extent of that work could be determined as a matter of "just and reasonable inference." The burden therefore shifted to appellees "to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the Secretary's evidence." Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1945). Accordingly, the Secretary's claim for restitution to the employees of minimum and overtime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desmond v. Pngi Charles Town Gaming, LLC
...Canal Co., 463 F.2d 1289, 1293 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1012, 93 S.Ct. 441, 34 L.Ed.2d 306 (1972); see Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969) (where employees presented evidence of work for which they were improperly compensated, burden shifted to employer......
-
Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC
...showing that a FLSA violation occurred." 575 F.3d at 602;see also Tyson Foods , 136 S. Ct. at 1048–49 ; Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc. , 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir. 1969) (per curiam); Porter v. Leventhal , 160 F.2d 52, 58 (2d Cir. 1946) ; Kemmerer v. ICI Ams. Inc. , 70 F.3d 281, 290 (3d Cir......
-
Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, 14–6063.
...not lessen the standard of proof for showing that a FLSA violation occurred." 575 F.3d at 602 ; see also Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969) (per curiam); Porter v. Leventhal, 160 F.2d 52, 58 (2d Cir.1946) ; Kemmerer v. ICI Ams. Inc., 70 F.3d 281, 290 (3d Cir.199......
-
Usery v. Chef Italia
...since the issue raised herein was neither disputed by the parties nor addressed by those courts. See, e.g., Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir., 1969). They can be explained, however, by the rationale utilized sub 6 The consent decree is embodied in the court's judgme......