O. C. BOYLS, DOING BUSINESS AS BOYLS DUSTING AND SPRAYING SERVICE, APPELLANT,
v.
W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that employees not performing work on a farm are not exempt under Section 13(a)(6) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Appellant, engaged in aerial crop dusting, sought to exempt office and warehouse employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Labor Division conte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fair Labor Standards Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant is engaged in the aerial crop dusting business. He maintains an office, hangar and warehouse at the Municipal Airport in Sinton, Texas. There were numerous employees working at this location. None but the airplane pilot and flagman ever went upon the farm in the performance of the functions of the business.
The Wages and Hours Division of the Department of Labor agreed that the pilot and the flagman were exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but contended that the employees at the office, hangar and warehouse who never went upon the farm were covered. Appellant claimed exemption of these employees under the provisions of Section 13(a) (6) of the Act. The District Court denied exemption for all employees other than the pilot and the flagmen.
In Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755, 69 S.Ct. 1274, 93 L.Ed. 1672 (1949) it was held that the exemptions of Section 13 (a) (6) apply only to work performed by a farmer or on a farm. This disposes of the question raised in this appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramirez v. Statewide Harvesting & Hauling, LLC, 997 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 2021)…8 of 14 a farm." Id. § 780.136. By contrast, activities "performed away from the farms being serviced," such as the repairing of equipment off a farm, are excluded. Hodgson v. Ewing, 451 F.2d 526, 527, 529 (5th Cir. 1971); see also Boyls v. Wirtz, 352 F.2d 63, 63 (5th Cir. 1965). In Farmers Reservoir, for example, the Supreme Court concluded that “the physical operation, control and maintenance” of “canals, reservoirs, and headgates" for a company that stored water and distributed it to farms through the…
-
Sariol v. Fla. Crystals Corp., 490 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007)
Authorities Cited
- Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755 (U.S. 1949)