Barth

Court of Claims

Barth

180 Ct. Cl. 1300, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 119, 1967 WL 1556

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 13, 1967

DocketNo. 26-65

StatusPublished

This text of 180 Ct. Cl. 1300 (Barth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barth, 180 Ct. Cl. 1300, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 119, 1967 WL 1556 (cc 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Civilian fwy; overtime fay; eating time. — Plaintiffs, civilian wage board employees of the Federal Aviation Agency whose duties consist of driving the mobile lounges at Dulles International Airport, sue to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended, 5 U.S.C. sec. 913, alleging that the thirty-minute unpaid lunch period authorized in each eight and a half hour shift was not satisfactory and that they should be compensated at overtime rates for such thirty minutes each day. The case came before the court on the parties cross motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration thereof, together with oral argument of counsel and on the basis of Bantom v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 312, cert. denied 379 U.S. 890 (1964), the court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover and on June 13,1967, it was ordered that the petition be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Civilian fwy; overtime fay; eating time. — Plaintiffs, civilian wage board employees of the Federal Aviation Agency whose duties consist of driving the mobile lounges at Dulles International Airport, sue to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended, 5 U.S.C. sec. 913, alleging that the thirty-minute unpaid lunch period authorized in each eight and a half hour shift was not satisfactory and that they should be compensated at overtime rates for such thirty minutes each day. The case came before the court on the parties cross motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration thereof, together with oral argument of counsel and on the basis of Bantom v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 312, cert. denied 379 U.S. 890 (1964), the court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover and on June 13,1967, it was ordered that the petition be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 Ct. Cl. 1300, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 119, 1967 WL 1556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barth-cc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack