James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Meyer Feinberg

Second Circuit

James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Meyer Feinberg

236 F.2d 9, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 1956

Docket88, Docket 23464

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 F.2d 9 (James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Meyer Feinberg) 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. Meyer Feinberg, 236 F.2d 9, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4568 (2d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We think our decision in Mitchell v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 235 F.2d 942, requires a modification of the judgment below. The facts are stated in Judge Galston’s opinion below, 123 F.Supp. 899.

It is true that under the Feinberg contract, an employee may receive greater compensation, in terms of hourly rates, for weeks in which he works four days (or less) than in weeks in which he works five days. This incident, however, is not violative of the Act and constitutes, in our judgment, insufficient ground to differentiate the case from Hartford. We hold that there was error in the conclusions that the contract did not meet the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and that the defendant had failed to pay required overtime for work in excess of 40 hours.

The violation of the record-keeping provisions of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 211(c) and 215(a) (5), we think was fully proved and properly enjoined.

Modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

We think our decision in Mitchell v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 235 F.2d 942, requires a modification of the judgment below. The facts are stated in Judge Galston’s opinion below, 123 F.Supp. 899.

It is true that under the Feinberg contract, an employee may receive greater compensation, in terms of hourly rates, for weeks in which he works four days (or less) than in weeks in which he works five days. This incident, however, is not violative of the Act and constitutes, in our judgment, insufficient ground to differentiate the case from Hartford. We hold that there was error in the conclusions that the contract did not meet the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and that the defendant had failed to pay required overtime for work in excess of 40 hours.

The violation of the record-keeping provisions of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 211(c) and 215(a) (5), we think was fully proved and properly enjoined.

Modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F.2d 9, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-p-mitchell-secretary-of-labor-v-meyer-feinberg-ca2-1956.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack