Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corporation

4 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. United States

    751 F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee was not working during a lunch period because the employee "had no substantial duties ... that would inhibit his ability adequately and comfortably to pursue interests of a private nature"

    ( Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 F. Supp. 661 (D.Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 F.2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 888, 73 S.Ct. 183, 97 L.Ed. 687 (1952); Thompson v. Stock Sons, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 213 (E.D.Mich. 1950), aff'd 194 F.2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 183 F.2d 515 (C.A. 9, 1950), 187 F.2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951); Walling v. Dunbar Transfer Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor Cases para. 61.565 (W.D.Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D.Okla.

  2. Reich v. S. New Eng. Telecomms. Corp.

    892 F. Supp. 389 (D. Conn. 1995)   Cited 13 times
    Tolling the two year statute of limitations because the defendant violated the FLSA by failing to maintain proper payroll records and by failing to produce complete lists of its employees names and payroll records; facts significantly different from the case at bar

    For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 F. Supp. 661 (D.Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 F.2d 981 (C.A.8, 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 888 [866] [ 73 S.Ct. 108, 97 L.Ed. 671] (1952); Thompson v. Stock Sons, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 213 (E.D.Mich. 1950), aff'd 194 F.2d 493 (C.A.6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 183 F.2d 515 (C.A.9, 1950), 187 F.2d 447 (C.A.9, 1951); Walling v. Dunbar Transfer Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor Cases para. 61.565 (W.D.Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D.Okla.

  3. Blain v. Gen. Elec. Co.

    371 F. Supp. 857 (W.D. Ky. 1971)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that the "30 minute meal period referred to in Section 785.19 is only a broad guide to the Administrator's enforcement policy. It is not an inflexible standard which binds either the Wage-Hour Administrator or the courts"

    For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 F. Supp. 661 (D.Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 F.2d 981 (C.A.8, 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 866 [ 73 S.Ct. 108, 97 L.Ed. 671] (1952) rehearing denied 344 U.S. 888 [ 73 S.Ct. 183, 97 L.Ed. 687] (1952); Thompson v. [F.W.] Stock Sons, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 213 (E.D.Mich. 1950), aff'd 194 F.2d 493 (C.A.6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 183 F.2d 515 (C.A.9, 1950), 187 F.2d 447 (C.A.9, 1951); Walling v. Dunbar Transfer and Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 234; 7 Labor Cases para. 61,565 (W.D.Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D.Okla 1942); aff'd 136 F.2d 359 (C.A.10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 [ 64 S.Ct. 77, 88 L.Ed. 462] (1943); Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65,198, 14 W.H. Cases 38 (S.D.Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 F. Supp. 29, 13 W.H. Cases (E.D.Pa. 1956))

  4. Smith v. Superior Casing Crews

    299 F. Supp. 725 (E.D. La. 1969)   Cited 3 times
    In Smith the court awarded the plaintiffs compensation for all time spent riding on boats to and from offshore rigs and all time spent waiting on the rigs until it was time to run casing.

    They had no regular sleeping period, and, indeed, could expect none. They were completely under Superior's direction whenever they were on the job site, even though they were permitted during periods when they were not needed to sleep or to eat a meal. See, e.g., General Electric Co. v. Porter, 9 Cir. 1953, 208 F.2d 805; and Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 9 Cir. 1950, 183 F.2d 515, opinion supplemented, 187 F.2d 447. Customers paid Superior for all employee time spent on the job site, so both Superior and its customers must have considered this to be work time. Hence it appears to be proper to apply the Administrator's interpretation here.