Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
October 21, 1958, Argued ; January 12, 1959, Decided
[*208] [***245] [**262] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, the Secretary of Labor, brought this action under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S. C. § 217, 1 [****4] to restrain respondent 2 from violating the record-keeping and overtime provisions of the Act. 29 U. S. C. §§ 206, 207, 211. The complaint was dismissed basically on the lower court's conclusion that the activities of respondent, an architectural and consulting engineering firm, were local in nature and not within the Act's coverage. 250 F.2d 253. We granted certiorari, 356 U.S. 917, to resolve an apparent conflict with a decision of another Court of Appeals in a similar case. 3
Respondent is hired to design public, industrial and residential projects and to prepare plans and specifications [*209] [***246] necessary for their construction. It has offices in both Norfolk, Virginia, and Washington, D. C., and it employs some sixty-five or seventy persons. Respondent does considerable work for the armed services. The District Court estimated that approximately 60% of the work in the Norfolk office has been done for the Army Engineers or the Navy Department while 85% of the work in Washington has been performed for similar agencies or for [****5] subdivisions of local governments in the District and nearby States. Many of respondent's projects and clients are located outside Virginia and the District of Columbia. A typical project undertaken in the past was the design of a standard mobile Army warehouse with the attendant preparation of detailed [**263] plans and specifications. In addition, respondent has designed various construction projects including the widening of streets at a naval operating base, the extension and paving of airplane taxiways and parking aprons at a naval air station, a local sewerage system in Maryland, the alteration of various hangar facilities at military air bases, the relocation of radio and television facilities, the improvement of state roads and turnpikes, and the repair of government buildings at shipyards. The balance of respondent's activity has consisted of preparing plans and specifications for the construction of private projects such as homes, commercial buildings, bus terminals, shopping centers and the like. Respondent has performed certain supervisory functions in connection with the construction of some of the private projects but almost none where governmental agencies were [****6] involved.
The government contracts required respondent to produce plans and specifications, copies of which were sent by the governmental agencies to prospective bidders, many of whom were located outside Virginia and the District of Columbia. These plans consisted of drawings and designs and were supplemented by explanatory specifications [*210] which contained the information necessary for estimating cost and guiding contractors in bidding and construction. They were prepared under the supervision of respondent's professional members and associates by draftsmen exployed by respondent. In many cases, the information necessary to prepare the plans and specifications was gathered on the site of the projects by fieldmen employed by respondent. These fieldmen included surveyors, transitmen and chainmen who often traveled across state lines to get to the projects. On one project, fieldmen from the Washington office went daily to nearby Maryland to gather data for a sewerage project. In addition to the draftsmen and fieldmen, various clerks and stenographers employed by respondent participated in the mechanical preparation of these plans and specifications.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
358 U.S. 207 *; 79 S. Ct. 260 **; 3 L. Ed. 2d 243 ***; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1749 ****; 36 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P65,149
MITCHELL, SECRETARY OF LABOR, v. LUBLIN, McGAUGHY & ASSOCIATES ET AL.
Prior History: [****1] CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
Disposition: 250 F.2d 253, reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.
employees, injunction, projects, commerce, coverage, engaged in commerce, facilities, plans and specifications, interstate, fieldmen, instrumentalities, preparation, specifications, parties, bases, plans
Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, General Overview, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Wage Payments, Overtime & Work Periods, Administrative Proceedings, Remedies, Injunctions, Private Suits