U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Bidwell A. Jones, Individually, and D/B/A B. A. Jones Casing Crew

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 24, 1970 · Rives, Wisdom, God-Bold

434 F.2d 1061; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6267; 19 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 799 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Sol., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Joe D. Sparks, Atlanta, Ga., Laurence H. Silberman, Sol. of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Associate Sol., Carin Ann Clauss, Le Roy M. Jahn, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant., Swep S. Taylor, Jr., Jackson, Miss., W. Vol Jones, Waynesboro, Miss., for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Texas 2014)
Colindres v. Quietflex Manufacturing (District Court, S.D. Texas 2006)
Robert G. Lecompte, Cross-Appellees v. Chrysler Credit Corporation, Cross-Appellant (5th Cir. 1986)
Duplessis v. Delta Gas, Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1986)
Reeves v. International Telephone And Telegraph Corporation (5th Cir. 1980)
Reeves v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. (5th Cir. 1980)
Ray Marshall v. Mammas Fried Chicken, Inc. (5th Cir. 1979)
Marshall v. Mammas Fried Chicken, Inc. (5th Cir. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an action by the Secretary of Labor under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 1 to enjoin the defendant employer from violating the Act’s overtime and record keeping provisions with respect to his oil field employees and to restrain the withholding of funds due the employees in unpaid overtime compensation. The District Court enjoined the defendant from further violations, and defendant concedes the power of the court to enter that order and does not attack its correctness.

However, the District Court also held that, although the employer had erroneously calculated overtime, the government had not proved the amount due each employee for such overtime and that the evidence before the court was insufficient for such calculation to be made, and denied relief to the employees for back pay due for overtime. This was error. E.g., Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed.,1515 (1945); Mitchell v. Riley, 296 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1961); Mitchell v. Mitchell Truck Line, Inc., 286 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1961). See also: Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419, 424-425, 65 S.Ct. 1242, 89 L.Ed. 1705, 1710 (1944). The case is remanded to the District Court for establishment of the amount due each employee and entry of an order restraining the employer from withholding the back wages thus calculated to be due.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

. 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.