Close menu

Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Coal,_Iron_&_Railroad_Co._v._Muscoda_Local_No._123
Updated: 2015-01-30T00:21Z
Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 13–14, 1944
Decided March 27, 1944
Full case nameTennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. et al. v. Muscoda Local No. 123 et al.
Citations321 U.S. 590 (more)
Holding
The miners' travel time constituted "work" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, entitling them to pay for such time.
Court membership
Case opinions
MajorityMurphy, joined by Black, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, Rutledge
ConcurrenceFrankfurter
ConcurrenceJackson
DissentRoberts, joined by Stone
Laws applied
Fair Labor Standards Act

Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944),[1] was an important decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to the interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This set a precedent for an expansive construction of the language of the FLSA.

Facts

Three iron ore companies filed a declarative action to determine whether time spent by their employees traveling underground to their work sites constituted employment for which compensation was due under the FLSA.[2] The district court found that this transit time was work, and the appellate court affirmed its holding as to travel time.[3]

Judgment

The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Murphy, held that the miners' travel time constituted "work" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, entitling them to pay for such time.[4] The Court stated that the Fair Labor Standards Act is a “remedial and humanitarian” statute, which “must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.”[5] Congress intended the Act to mandate either regular or overtime compensation for all work activities.

Concurring opinions

Justices Jackson and Frankfurter each wrote a short concurrence. Both argued that the determination of the trial court that the miners' travel time was part of their workweek was an issue of fact that should be affirmed unless clear error was present.[6]

Dissenting opinion

Justice Roberts dissented in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Stone. Viewing the court's interpretation of the FLSA as overly expansive, Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of interpreting what is written in a statute, rather than what the court wishes is in the statute.[7]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944).
  2. ^ 321 U.S. at 592.
  3. ^ 321 U.S. at 593.
  4. ^ 321 U.S. at 603.
  5. ^ 321 U.S. at 597.
  6. ^ 321 U.S. at 603-606.
  7. ^ 321 U.S. at 606.

References

External links

  • Text of Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia 
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Also On Wow

    Advertisement