Mitchell v. Williams

211 F. Supp. 860, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4194
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedDecember 18, 1962
DocketCiv. A. No. 2408
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 F. Supp. 860 (Mitchell v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mitchell v. Williams, 211 F. Supp. 860, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4194 (E.D. La. 1962).

Opinion

WEST, District Judge.

Pursuant to authority vested in him by the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201, the Secretary of Labor instituted this action against Wilbur C. Williams, individually and doing business as Baton Rouge Oil Company, and Wilbur C. Williams and Aswell Courville, individually and as a partnership, doing business as WWC Trucking Service, to recover for Albert Efferson, John J. Efferson and William B. Efferson wages and overtime pay alleged to be due under the act. On behalf of Albert Efferson it is alleged that he worked for respondents, jointly, as a night watchman, averaging 64 hours per week, for eleven weeks, and that he was underpaid, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the sum of $217.50. On behalf of John J. Efferson it is alleged that he worked an average of 65 hours per week, during sixteen weeks, and that he averaged working 100 hours per week during four weeks, and was underpaid, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the sum of $841. On behalf of William B. Efferson it is alleged that he worked an average of 65 hours per week during eleven weeks, and that he worked an average of 100 hours per week during four weeks, and, that under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, he was underpaid the sum of $485.

This suit was filed on December 5, 1960, and answer was filed on January 28, 1961. On March 31, 1961, complainant filed requests for admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and also, on the same day, filed interrogatories directed to respondents under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No answers to the requests for admissions were ever filed, but on July 8, 1961, respondents filed answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Previously, however, on May 15, 1961, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants’ answer and for judgment by default pursuant to Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 19, 1962, this motion was granted, and the case was subsequently set down for hearing on the question of quantum only. Some time after this matter was heard by this Court, and submitted, the defendant, Wilbur C. Williams, on October 9, 1962, filed a motion for leave to amend his answer and attached thereto a certified copy of the discharge in bankruptcy dated March 13, 1962, whereby the said defendant, Wilbur C. Williams, doing business as Baton Rouge Oil Company, and as WWC Trucking Company, was duly adjudged a bankrupt and discharged from all debts and claims which, by the Act of Congress relating to bankruptcy, were made provable against his estate, except such as are, by the Act, expressly excepted from the operation of a discharge in bankruptcy.

Now, after hearing the evidence, and after having received and studied the briefs filed by counsel for all parties to this suit, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.

The Court finds that the employees involved in this suit, in the performance' of the work for which they claim unpaid [862]*862wages, were and are covered by the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

2.

The records pertaining to hours worked and payroll data kept by respondents were so completely inadequate as to be of no value whatsoever to the Court in arriving at a determination of this matter. The only records filed in evidence were a series of cards purporting to show hours worked and pay received by these employees. But the figures on these cards cannot be reconciled with any of the testimony given at the trial, including that given by the respondent, Aswell Courville, and hence, the information contained thereon is deemed to be completely unreliable.

3.

Albert Efferson worked for the respondents, jointly, as a night watchman for a total of 11 weeks between February 29, 1960, and May 15, 1960. During that time, he averaged working 9 hours per night, 7 nights per week, or a total •of 63 hours per week.

4.

The only time missed from work by Albert Efferson was one night, or 9 hours, during which he was sick.

5.

This employee, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, was entitled to be paid on the basis of $1.00 per hour for the first 40 hours worked each week, plus $1.50 per hour for the 23 hours over 40 hours that he worked each week. On this basis, and after deducting $10.60 for the night on which he was unable to work, Albert Efferson should have been paid, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a total of $808.90.

6.

It is admitted by all counsel that Albert Efferson was, in fact, actually paid by the respondents during this 11 week period the total sum of $605.

7.

John J. Efferson worked for the respondents, jointly, for 20 weeks between November 30, 1959, and April 17, 1960. He worked primarily as a truck driver, but during one 4 week period, contained within the 20 week period mentioned, he also worked as a night watchman. Then too, during times when his truck was disabled, or the weather was bad, he sometimes worked in the repair shop or at the filling station.

8.

During 6 weeks of this time he was employed to drive a large tandem truck at an hourly wage of $1.70. During the remaining 14 weeks he was employed at the rate of $1.50 per hour to drive a “bob-tail” truck. No pay was agreed upon insofar as the night watchman work was concerned, and apparently none was paid.

9.

There are no records available by which to ascertain the number of hours actually worked by this employee, and unfortunately, his testimony is as vague and uncertain as are the records. In spite of the fact that this employee contends he averaged working 11 hours per day, 6 days per week, this Court concludes differently. His testimony was far from convincing, and when carefully considered, simply makes such a conclusion improbable, if not impossible. However, it is concluded that he worked more hours than those for which he was paid.

10.

This Court therefore concludes that John J. Efferson averaged working 49 hours per week as a truck driver during the 20 weeks of his employment with respondents. During 6 of those weeks he was employed at $1.70 per hour, which amount he was entitled to receive for the first 40 hours worked each week. For the remaining 9 hours per week worked during those weeks he was entitled, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to receive time and a half, or $2.55 per hour. [863]*863This entitled him, under the Act, to a total of $545.70 for those 6 weeks’ work. During the remaining 14 weeks he was employed driving a “bob-tail” truck at an hourly wage of $1.50, which amount he is entitled to receive during the first 40 hours worked each week. For the remaining 9 hours worked each week during that period, he was entitled to be paid on a time and a half basis, or at the rate of $2.25 per hour.

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

Related

Foster v. Irwin
258 F. Supp. 709 (E.D. Louisiana, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
211 F. Supp. 860, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-williams-laed-1962.