James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Edward S. Wagner Co., Inc.

Second Circuit

James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Edward S. Wagner Co., Inc.

217 F.2d 303, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1954

Docket34, Docket 23063

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 217 F.2d 303 (James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Edward S. Wagner Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Edward S. Wagner Co., Inc., 217 F.2d 303, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027 (2d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order enjoining defendant from further violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, §§ 6, 15(a), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 215(a), and administrative regulations pursuant thereto, 29 CFR 617, 516 (as amended in 1951). On a prior appeal this court held that industrial homeworkers employed by defendant were covered by the Act, but not by the regulations then in effect. Tobin v. Edward S. Wagner Co., 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 977. Subsequent to that decision the regulations were amended to their present form. Judge Galston has found that the defendant’s operations fall within the amended regulations and that the regulations were propei’ly promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1003(a). D.C.E.D.N.Y., 115 F. Supp. 118. We see no reason to overturn his well-reasoned conclusions. While there was no advance notice of the amendment, yet that was not necessary, both because of its nature as an “interpretative” rule and because of the Administrator’s finding of “good cause” for immediate action, based upon the fact that other employers in general were complying with . this interpretation of the Act and defendant had long known of the view held by the Administrator.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order enjoining defendant from further violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, §§ 6, 15(a), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 215(a), and administrative regulations pursuant thereto, 29 CFR 617, 516 (as amended in 1951). On a prior appeal this court held that industrial homeworkers employed by defendant were covered by the Act, but not by the regulations then in effect. Tobin v. Edward S. Wagner Co., 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 977. Subsequent to that decision the regulations were amended to their present form. Judge Galston has found that the defendant’s operations fall within the amended regulations and that the regulations were propei’ly promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1003(a). D.C.E.D.N.Y., 115 F. Supp. 118. We see no reason to overturn his well-reasoned conclusions. While there was no advance notice of the amendment, yet that was not necessary, both because of its nature as an “interpretative” rule and because of the Administrator’s finding of “good cause” for immediate action, based upon the fact that other employers in general were complying with . this interpretation of the Act and defendant had long known of the view held by the Administrator.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 F.2d 303, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-p-mitchell-secretary-of-labor-v-edward-s-wagner-co-inc-ca2-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack