Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.

145 F.2d 163

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1944-10-18
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Notwithstanding some more or less remote approaches to the present problem in Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638, and Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 317 U.S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 83, it is impossible for us to entertain the concept that window cleaning becomes interstate commerce, or is in pursuance of the production of goods for commerce, by the fact that the windows that are cleansed are in the manufacturing establishments of industries engaged in interstate commerce, nor are we able to reject the concept that a window cleaning company is a service establishment, under § 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a), even though the service it renders is not performed on its own premises. We adhere to our rationalization in Lonas v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
8 opinions
Distinguished
1 times
MARTINO v. MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO.,145 F.2d 163(6th Cir. 1944)
MARTINO v. MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO.
No. 9755.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
October 18, 1944.
Writ of Certiorari Denied February 26, 1945.
See 65 S.Ct. 685.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Frank A. Picard, Judge.

Action by Thomas Martino against the Michigan Window Cleaning Company for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. From a judgment dismissing the suit,51 F. Supp. 505, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Leon A. Cousens, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Davidow Davidow, of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.
Before SIMONS, HAMILTON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Notwithstanding some more or less remote approaches to the present problem in Kirschbaum v. Walling,316 U.S. 517,62 S.Ct. 1116,86 L.Ed. 1638, and Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall,317 U.S. 88,63 S.Ct. 125,87 L.Ed. 83, it is impossible for us to entertain the concept that window cleaning becomes interstate commerce, or is in pursuance of the production of goods for commerce, by the fact that the windows that are cleansed are in the manufacturing establishments of industries engaged in interstate commerce, nor are we able to reject the concept that a window cleaning company is a service establishment, under § 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a), even though the service it renders is not performed on its own premises. We adhere to our rationalization in Lonas v. National Linen Service Corp., 6 Cir.,136 F.2d 433, 150 A.L.R. 697, certiorari denied320 U.S. 785,64 S.Ct. 157.

Wherefore, the judgment below dismissing the appellant's suit for over-time pay based upon the provisions of the Act, is hereby affirmed.Page 233