JAMES D. HODGSON, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FRISCH DIXIE, INC., A CORPORATION, AND CURTIS H. EHRLICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF FRISCH DIXIE, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 the district court's order to pay minimum wages was authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
The defendant appealed an order from the district court restraining them from withholding minimum wages found due to employees under the Fair Labor St…
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 Minimum Wage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Defendant appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, restraining appellants from withholding payment of certain minimum wages found by the court to be due their employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1970).
. The District Court entered extensive findings of fact pertaining to the violations of said Act, which findings of fact on review of this record we certainly cannot hold to be clearly erroneous. This record is replete with evidence which supports the District Judge’s findings.
Appellants also contend that the District Judge’s order requiring payment of approximately $8,000 to the Secretary of Labor for distribution to the employees concerned was unauthorized by § 17 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 217 (1970). On review of the language of the Act and its legislative history, we hold that this order is consistent with both the letter of the Act and the congressional intention involved in its adoption. Hodgson v. Wheaton Glass Co., 446 F. 2d 527, 529-534 (3d Cir. 1971); Shultz v. Mistletoe Express Service, Inc., 434 F. 2d 1267 (10th Cir. 1971).
Further, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the District Judge in his rulings on the admission of evidence or in the modification of his pretrial order. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barcellona v. Tiffany English PUB, Inc., 597 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
Davis Bros. v. Donovan, 700 F.2d 1368 (11th Cir. 1983)
-
Dunlop v. City Elec., Inc., 527 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1976)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hodgson v. Wheaton Glass Co., 446 F.2d 527 (3d Cir. 1971)
- Shultz v. Mistletoe Express Serv., Inc., 434 F.2d 1267 (10th Cir. 1970)