United States v. Rosenwasser, No. 106

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MURPHY
• Citation: 89 L.Ed. 301,323 U.S. 360,65 S.Ct. 295
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ROSENWASSER
• Docket Number: No. 106
• Decision Date: 02 January 1945

323 U.S. 360 65 S.Ct. 295 89 L.Ed. 301 UNITED STATES

v.

ROSENWASSER.

No. 106. Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 1944. Decided Jan. 2, 1945.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.

Mr. Ralph F. Fuchs, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Victor Behrstock, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Page 361

Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a direct appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of California. That court sustained appellee's demurrer to an information charging violations of the minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. This was done on the ground that the Act is inapplicable where employees are compensated at piece rates, as is the case in appellee's garment business. We are thus met with the clear issue of whether the Act covers piece rate employees so as to subject their employers to its criminal provisions.

Neither the policy of the Act nor the legislative history gives any real basis for excluding piece workers from the benefits of the statute. This legislation was designed to raise substandard wages and to give additional compensation for overtime work as to those employees within its ambit, thereby helping to protect this nation 'from the evils and dangers resulting from wages too low to buy the bare necessities of life and from long hours of work injurious to health.' Sen.Rep. No. 884 (75th Cong., 1st Sess.) p. 4; United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, 132 A.L.R. 1430. No reason is apparent why piece workers who are underpaid¹ or who work long hours do not fall within the spirit or intent of this statute, absent an explicit exception as to them. Piece rate and incentive systems were widely prevalent in the United States at the time of the passage of

Page 362

this Act² and we cannot assume that Congress meant to discriminate against the many workers compensated under such systems. Certainly the evils which the Act sought to eliminate permit of no distinction or discrimination based upon the method of employee compensation and none is evident from the legislative history.

The plain words of the statute give an even more unmistakable answer to the problem. Section 6(a) of the Act provides that 'every employer' shall pay to 'each of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce' not less than specified minimum 'rates,' which at present are 'not less than 30 cents an hour.' Section 7(a) provides that 'no employer' shall employ 'any of his employees' for longer than specified hours in any week without paying overtime compensation 'at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.' The term 'employee' is defined in Section 3(e) to include 'any individual employed by an employer,' with certain exceptions not here pertinent being specified in Section 13, and the term 'employ' is defined in Section 3(g) to include 'to suffer or...