Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Bidwell A. Jones, Individually, and D/B/A B. A. Jones Casing Crew
James D. Hodgson, Sec’y of Labor, United States Dep’t of Labor v. Bidwell A. Jones, Individually, & D/B/A B. A. Jones Casing Crew, 434 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1970-11-24
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM: This is an action by the Secretary of Labor under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 1 to enjoin the defendant employer from violating the Act’s overtime and record keeping provisions with respect to his oil field employees and to restrain the withholding of funds due the employees in unpaid overtime compensation. The District Court enjoined the defendant from further violations, and defendant concedes the power of the court to enter that order and does not attack its correctness. However, the District Court also held that, although the employer had erroneously calculated overtime, the government had not proved the amount due each employee for such overtime and that the evidence before the court was insufficient for such calculation to be made, and denied relief to the employees for back pay due for overtime. This was error. E.g., Anderson v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Bidwell A. Jones, Individually, and D/B/A B. A. Jones Casing Crew. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
Swep S. Taylor, Jr., Jackson, Miss., W. Vol Jones, Waynesboro, Miss., for defendant-appellee.
However, the District Court also held that, although the employer had erroneously calculated overtime, the government had not proved the amount due each employee for such overtime and that the evidence before the court was insufficient for such calculation to be made, and denied relief to the employees for back pay due for overtime. This was error.E.g.,Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.,328 U.S. 680,66 S.Ct. 1187,90 L.Ed. 1515(1945); Mitchell v. Riley,296 F.2d 614(5th Cir. 1961); Mitchell v. Mitchell Truck Line, Inc.,286 F.2d 721(5th Cir. 1961).See also:Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co.,325 U.S. 419,424-425,65 S.Ct. 1242,89 L.Ed. 1705,1710(1944). The case is remanded to the District Court for establishment of the amount due each employee and entry of an order restraining the employer from withholding the back wages thus calculated to be due.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.Page 1063
- 29 U.S.C. § 201et seq. ↩