From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wirtz v. Handy

United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Dec 27, 1967
279 F. Supp. 264 (S.D. Fla. 1967)

Summary

barring only that part of overtime claim arising prior to limitations period

Summary of this case from Angulo v. the Levy Co.

Opinion

Civ. A. No. 67-1057.

December 27, 1967.

Charles Donahue, Solicitor of Labor, Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., Earl Harper, Jr., Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

Arthur S. Davis, Hialeah, Fla., for defendants.


ORDER


The Secretary of Labor has filed his Complaint in this case under Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended ( 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Secretary seeks an injunction restraining defendants from violating, among other things, the overtime provisions of the Act and a judgment restraining the defendants from withholding overtime compensation alleged to be due certain present and former employees. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss based on three grounds: (1) that the Secretary has not filed written consents of the employees for whom restitution is sought; (2) that some of the overtime compensation alleged to be due accrued more than two years prior to the filing of plaintiff's Complaint; and (3) that the defendants are no longer associated with the corporation out of whose operations the employment questions arise. The Motion came on for hearing December 18, 1967. The Court has considered the memoranda and oral argument of counsel and is fully advised.

As to the first ground, defendants at oral argument withdrew the same. As to the second ground, Section 6 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 bars actions for recovery of minimum wages and overtime compensation unless commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued. The three year limitation was added by amendment effective February 1, 1967. The amendment does not impose any new sanction nor create any new right with respect to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act. The amendment affects the remedy, not the right. Therefore, the plaintiff properly may seek recovery of unpaid compensation alleged to be due which accrued not over three years before this action was filed and which arose out of willful violation. Whether the recovery, if any, is limited to two years or three will depend upon proof at trial of the cause. The Court directed plaintiff at the hearing on the Motion to amend his Complaint to eliminate any claim for compensation which accrued over three years before the filing of this action and such amendment has been filed. As to the third ground, the nature and extent of injunctive relief, if any, will also depend upon the evidence to be adduced at trial of the cause.

Wherefore plaintiff's amendment is hereby allowed and defendants' motion to dismiss is overruled and denied as to each and every ground.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Wirtz v. Handy

United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Dec 27, 1967
279 F. Supp. 264 (S.D. Fla. 1967)

barring only that part of overtime claim arising prior to limitations period

Summary of this case from Angulo v. the Levy Co.
Case details for

Wirtz v. Handy

Case Details

Full title:W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Florida

Date published: Dec 27, 1967

Citations

279 F. Supp. 264 (S.D. Fla. 1967)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Superior Casing Crews

See also, Wirtz v. Tooley-Myron Corporation, 47 Labor Cases 31,411 (U.S.D.C.Florida 1963) and Goldberg v. M.…

Angulo v. the Levy Co.

As a result, plaintiffs' claims for overtime arising prior to January 18, 1980 (two years immediately prior…