Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.

145 F.2d 163, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided October 18, 1944·No. No. 9755·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

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 denied 320 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.

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

Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 145 F.2d 163, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427 (6th Cir. 1944).

145 F.2d 163 (Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michigan Window Cleaning Co. v. Martino
173 F.2d 466 (Sixth Circuit, 1949)
Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.
327 U.S. 173 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling
326 U.S. 657 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Phillips v. Star Overall Dry Cleaning Laundry Co.
149 F.2d 416 (Second Circuit, 1945)
Walling v. Roland Electrical Co.
146 F.2d 745 (Fourth Circuit, 1945)