W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, Etc. v. San Francisco and Oakland Helicopter Airlines, Inc., a Corp.

Ninth Circuit

W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, Etc. v. San Francisco and Oakland Helicopter Airlines, Inc., a Corp.

370 F.2d 328

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1967

Docket20815

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 370 F.2d 328 (W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, Etc. v. San Francisco and Oakland Helicopter Airlines, Inc., a Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, Etc. v. San Francisco and Oakland Helicopter Airlines, Inc., a Corp., 370 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this action the sole question presented is whether one Richardson and certain persons employed by him to perform janitorial and porter services at two of appellee’s heliports were employees of appellee within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The trial court, in a detailed opinion and in formal findings, found that Richardson was an independent contractor and that he and his employees were not employees of appellee. We are unable to say that the findings are clearly erroneous. We think that the court correctly applied the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 1946, 330 U.S. 148, 152, 67 S.Ct. 639, 641, 91 L.Ed. 809.

“The definition ‘suffer or permit to work’ was obviously not intended to stamp all persons as employees who, without any express or implied compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises of another.”

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this action the sole question presented is whether one Richardson and certain persons employed by him to perform janitorial and porter services at two of appellee’s heliports were employees of appellee within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The trial court, in a detailed opinion and in formal findings, found that Richardson was an independent contractor and that he and his employees were not employees of appellee. We are unable to say that the findings are clearly erroneous. We think that the court correctly applied the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 1946, 330 U.S. 148, 152, 67 S.Ct. 639, 641, 91 L.Ed. 809.

“The definition ‘suffer or permit to work’ was obviously not intended to stamp all persons as employees who, without any express or implied compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises of another.”

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 F.2d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-willard-wirtz-secretary-of-labor-etc-v-san-francisco-and-oakland-ca9-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack