Sims v. PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY
| Decision Date | 06 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1170.,71-1170. |
| Parties | Calvin SIMS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert L. Segar, Flint, Mich., Leitson, Dean, Dean, Segar & Hart, P.C., Flint, Mich., on the brief, for appellants.
Timothy K. Carroll, Wolfgang Hoppe, Detroit, Mich., Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, Detroit, Mich., on the brief, for Parke Davis and Co.
Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, by James D. Tracy, Timothy K. Carroll, Detroit, Mich., for Upjohn Co.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. for State of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Solomon Bienenfeld, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., on the brief for Attorney General of the State of Michigan.
Certiorari Denied March 6, 1972. See 92 S.Ct. 1196.
ORDERBefore McCREE, BROOKS and KENT, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought as a class action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The plaintiffs-appellants are present and former inmates at the State Prison of Southern Michigan seeking additional recovery for their labor in drug clinics operated on the prison grounds by two of the defendants-appellees, Parke Davis & Company and The Upjohn Company. Plaintiffs' claims are based primarily on their contentions that (1) they are entitled to recover from the defendant drug companies the difference between the compensation they received for their work and the minimum wage prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; (2) or otherwise, they are entitled to recover the difference between the compensation received and the minimum wage as prescribed by the Michigan Minimum Wage Law of 1964, Mich.Com.Laws § 408.381. Also, they claim the drug companies have been unjustly enriched by the illegal use of their services for which the plaintiffs should recover on a quantum meruit basis, and further, that they are entitled to damages for various alleged constitutional deprivations.
The District Court, in a detailed and comprehensive opinion, refused to permit the action to be maintained as a class action and granted summary judgment denying all relief sought by the plaintiffs. Upon our consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, it is concluded that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed for the reasons stated by Chief Judge ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMaster v. State of Minn.
... ... Sara, Inc., 721 F.2d 149 (5th Cir.1983); Sims v. Parke Davis & Co., 334 F.Supp. 774 (E.D.Mich.), aff'd. 453 F.2d 1259 ... F.2d 1549 (5th Cir.1990) (inmates who worked for a construction company outside prison grounds were employees of the company); Carter v. Duchess ... ...
-
Hale v. State of Ariz.
... ... with other circuits and are not persuaded that we should part company on this point ... The question we must resolve is ... belonged to institution), aff'd, 721 F.2d 149 (5th Cir.1983); Sims v. Parke Davis & Co., 334 F.Supp. 774 (E.D.Mich.) (work assignments up to ... ...
-
Roberts v. Western Airlines
... ... Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 288 (5 Cir. 1975); Sims v. Parke Davis & Co., 334 F.Supp. 774, 780-781 (E.D.Mich.), aff'd 453 ... E. g., United States v. Georgia Power Company, 474 F.2d 906, 922-924 (5 Cir. 1973). See Johnson v. Railway Express ... ...
-
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
... ... Cir.1983) (no contractual relationship between inmates and outside company; compensation paid to State, not to inmates; no right on part of outside company to reject inmate assigned to work in plasma program); Sims v. Parke Davis & Co., 334 F.Supp. 774, 783-87 (E.D.Mich.), aff'd per ... ...