United States v. Harp

80 F. Supp. 236, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2068
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma
DecidedAugust 31, 1948
DocketCiv. No. 3726
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 80 F. Supp. 236 (United States v. Harp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Harp, 80 F. Supp. 236, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2068 (W.D. Okla. 1948).

Opinion

BROADDUS, District Judge.

Parties and Jurisdiction

1. This action is brought by the United States against O. G. Plarp, doing business as O. G. Harp Poultry and Egg Company, to recover liquidated damages as a result of alleged violations of the Public Contracts Act, 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 35-45, in the hiring, by defendant, of girls under the age of sixteen years; and the employment of girls between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years for periods of more than [238]*238eight hours per day in violation of the terms of the Act and the terms of exemptions thereto issued by the Secretary of Labor under the authority of the Act. This court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.G.A. §§ 1331, 1332, 1345.

The Statute of Limitations

2. The employment complained of began in October, 1943, and continued into the early part of 1945. Complaint was filed, in the Division of Public Contracts of the Department of Labor on February 11, 1946, and after notice and hearing as provided in the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the Act, on November 21, 1946, the trial examiner filed his report and recommendation that the sum of $13,030 be collected from the defendant as liquidated damages for employment in violation of the Act and the terms of the exemptions issued pursuant thereto. Exception was taken by the defendant to the trial examiner’s report, and on July 25, 1947, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division of the Department of Labor filed his decision ordering defendant to pay to the United States as liquidated damages the sum of $6,970. This action to enforce that decision was brought by the United States on September 8, 1947.

Conclusions of Law

A. Any action commenced on or after May 14, 1947, to enforce an action for liquidated- damages under the WalshHealey Act, otherwise known as the Public Contracts Act, may be brought (a) within two years if the action accrues on or after May 14, 1947; or (b) if the action accrued prior thereto within whichever of the following periods is the shorter: (1) within two years after the action accrues, or (2) the period prescribed by the applicable state statute of limitations; or (c) should the cause of action have accrued prior to May 14, 1947, it shall not be barred by paragraph (b) if it is commenced within one hundred and twenty days after May 14, 1947, unless at the time commenced it is barred by an applicable state statute of limitations. Act of May 14, 1947, c. 52, Sec. 6, 61 Stat. 87, 29 U.S.C.A. § 255, the Portal-to-Portal Act.

B. The limitation statute begins to run at the time the action accrues so that suit may properly be maintained on the liability. Versluis v. Town of Haskell, 10 Cir., 154 F.2d 935; Yager v. Liberty Royalties Corporation, 10 Cir., 123 F.2d 44; City of Beach v. Goepfert, 8 Cir., 147 F.2d 480. Any violation of the stipulations in any contract within the operation of the Public Contracts Act renders the responsible party liable to the United States in a given sum for what is designated as “liquidated damages”. 41 U.S.C.A. § 36. -The Secretary of Labor is the authorized authority to administer the Public Contracts Act; and has the power to make investigations and findings and to issue such regulations as may be necessary for the enforcement of the Act. 41 U.S.C.A. § 38. Upon hearing, the Secretary may make findings and decisions which, if supported by the preponderance of the evidence shall be conclusive in any court of the United States. Following this method or type of procedure, no cause of action accrues upon such determination, where the findings are conclusive in. any court of the United States, until the finding or decision is made by the Secretary. When the decision or action of an administrative board creates, or is the basis of liability, the statute of limitations begins to run upon the making of the decision or the happening of the event. United States v. Wurts, 303 U.S. 414, 58 S.Ct. 637, 82 L.Ed. 932; Bonwit Teller & Company v. United States, 283 U.S. 258, 51 S.Ct. 395,. 75 L.Ed. 1018; Rawlings, Receiver v. Ray, 312 U.S. 96, 61 S.Ct. 473, 85 L.Ed. 605; Fisher v. Whiton, 317 U.S. 217, 63 S.Ct. 175, 87 L.Ed. 223; Cope v. Anderson, 331 U.S. 461, 67 S.Ct. 1340, 91 L.Ed. 1602. The action having accrued on the date of the administrator’s decision of July 25, 1947, and after the effective date of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq., that is May 14, 1947, the action herein must have been filed within two years of the decision and, - having been filed within that time, is not barred.

C. The state statute of limitations does not apply to the United States in an action enforcing its sovereign rights as opposed to one seeking a collection for [239]*239the benefit of private persons. United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283; United States v. First National Bank of Prague, 10 Cir., 124 F.2d 484. Nor is the United States, while acting in its sovereign capacity, barred by any Federal statute of limitations unless after strict construction in its favor it is fairly included within the statute. Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Company, 273 U.S. 346, 47 S.Ct. 389, 71 L.Ed. 676; Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456, 462, 44 S.Ct. 364, 68 L.Ed, 788.

D. The Public Contracts Act places in the United States the responsibility of enforcing its provisions; and to recover the sums equal to the amount of deductions, rebates or underpayment of wages due any employee and liquidated damages, in addition to damages for any other breach of contract, in the sum of $10 per day for each male person under sixteen years of age or each female person under eighteen years of age employed. 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 35, 36. Apparently there is no authority in the employee to maintain any action under the Act. Greenstein v. Pan American Airways, 185 Misc. 429, 57 N.Y.S.2d 178; see Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108, and Willis v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., D.C.E.D.Okl., 76 F.Supp. 1010. Therefore, the statute of limitations of the Portal-to-Portal Act, May 14, 1947, c. 52, Sec. 6, 61 Stat. 87, 29 U.S.C.A. § 255, wherein actions under the Walsh-Healey Act, otherwise known as the Public Contracts Act, were brought within its operation must have referred to actions brought by the United States under the WalshHealey Act.

E. Should it be considered that the action accrues each day a minor under the age prescribed in the statute, or in the contract, is employed, then the applicable statue of Oklahoma comes in operation as the action would have accrued prior to May 14, 1947, the effective date of the Portal-to-Portal Act.

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

Related

Martinez v. Phillips Petroleum Company
283 F. Supp. 514 (D. Idaho, 1968)
United States v. W. H. Kistler Stationery Co.
200 F.2d 805 (Tenth Circuit, 1952)
United States v. W. H. Kistler Stationery Co.
104 F. Supp. 16 (D. Colorado, 1952)
United States v. New York Dock Co.
100 F. Supp. 303 (S.D. New York, 1951)
United States v. Lance, Inc.
95 F. Supp. 327 (W.D. North Carolina, 1951)
United States v. Sweet Briar, Inc.
92 F. Supp. 777 (W.D. South Carolina, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 F. Supp. 236, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harp-okwd-1948.