THOMAS
v.
HEMPT BROTHERS
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 state courts erred in holding that the complaint failed to set out a good cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff sued for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging employment in producing and handling quarry and concrete products used …
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 Overtime Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner Thomas sued the respondent Hempt Brothers in a Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and counsel fees under the provisions of §§ 6, 7 and 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.* The complaint alleged these facts: Hempt Brothers operate a stone quarry in Pennsylvania , use the stone in manufacturing cement mixtures, and then haul these mixtures in trucks to customers. Their customers were the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, an airport, an army depot, and a navy depot, all located within the state of Pennsylvania. The concrete was processed for use by these customers on Pennsylvania projects. The Railroad used its concrete for repair and maintenance of its roadbeds over which were operated interstate passenger and freight trains. The Turnpike used its concrete for laying and building “a highway which handles the flow of commerce between the states.” The airport used concrete to build and erect landing fields to accommodate the flow of airplanes in interstate commerce. Other purchasers used their concrete on “projects which aided the flow of commerce, as will be proven by Plaintiff when he has his day in Court.” Thomas was employed in producing and handling the quarry and concrete products.
On these allegations the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sustained the trial court’s judgment for Hempt Brothers entered on the ground that the complaint failed to show a recoverable cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 371 Pa. 383, 89 A. 2d 776. And see 62 Pa. D. & C. 618, 626 (1948); and 74 Pa. D. & C. 213, 218 (1950). In sustaining dismissal of the complaint the State Supreme Court recognized that its holding was in conflict with that of the Third Circuit in Tobin v. Alstate Construction Co., 195 F. 2d 577. We granted certiorari because of this conflict. 344 U. S. 895.
We have today affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment in the Alstate case, ante, p. 13. The reasons we gave for affirming that case require that this case be reversed because the state courts erred in holding that the complaint failed to set out a good cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in No. 296, Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, ante, p. 17.
*
52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 63 Stat. 910, 29 U. S. C. §§ 206, 207, 216 (b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Mitchell v. Raines, 238 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1956)…rinting Co., supra; Schulte v. Gangi, supra; Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, supra. The Employer was, therefore, producing goods for commerce, Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, 345 U.S. 13, 73 S.Ct. 565, 97 L.Ed. 745; Thomas v. Hempt Bros., 345 U.S. 19, 73 S.Ct. 568, 97 L.Ed. 751, and was charged with knowledge that he was doing so. And for this activity, Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct.. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460; Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U.S. 178, 184, 66 S.Ct.…
-
Archer v. Brown & Root, Inc., 241 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1957)…materials (cement, concrete, piling, precast slabs, etc>) which went directly into its congtruction were engaged in “producing g00(js for commerce”, Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, 345 U.S. 13, 73 S.Ct. 565, 97 L.Ed. 745; Thomas v. Hempt Bros., 345 U.S. 19, 73 S.Ct. 568, 97 L.Ed. 751; Mitchell v. Raines, 5 Cir., 238 F. 2d 186, 188. (c) Construction of the Field Plant Starting with the premise that ordinarily the construction of a plant which, when completed, is expected to manufacture goods a part o…
-
Mitchell v. Hooper Equip. Co., Inc., 279 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1960)…production of goods for commerce. This was the principle articulated in Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, 1953, 345 U.S. 13, 73 S.Ct. 565, 97 L.Ed. 745, which found precise application in the companion case of Thomas v. Hempt Bros.,2 [*896] 1953, 345 U.S. 19, 73 S.Ct. 568, 97 L.Ed. 751. Pointing out that persons working on highways, railroad rights-of-way, airfields, or other facilities of interstate commerce are engaged “in commerce,” the Court reached the same conclusion for those who produce the mate…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tobin v. Alstate Const. Co., 195 F.2d 577 (3d Cir. 1952)
- De Guia v. United States, 344 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1952)
- Graham v. Dowd, 344 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1952)