293 N.Y. 126 | NY | 1944
Lead Opinion
This action was brought under section 16-b of the Fair Labor Standards Act (52 Stat. 1060; U.S. Code, tit. 29, § 201 etseq.) by employees against their employer to recover overtime compensation plus an equivalent amount as liquidated damages. The question was whether at the time in issue the plaintiffs were "engaged in commerce" in the sense of that phrase as used in sections 6 and 7 of the Act. (See Stoike v. First NationalBank,
Special Term dismissed the complaint (
The case was originally submitted upon an agreed statement of facts which has never been altered in any way. It is thereby stipulated that the work on which the plaintiffs' claims are based was done by them under a contract through which the defendant undertook with a railroad company to reconstruct two bridges that were instrumentalities of interstate commerce. (
We concur with the courts below in their rejection of that contention. The agreed statement of facts on the face of it was a case within the statute. (McLeod v. Threlkeld,
The remaining questions have to do with costs and interest that were allowed to the plaintiffs.
The award to them of costs in all courts was not unauthorized. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1470, subd. 11; Murtha v. Curley,
As we read the Federal cases, the liability for liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act is contractual in *130
character. (Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel,
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent only from so much of the decision as holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the "liquidated damages" which, under the statute, must be paid by any employer who violates the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The liability for such payment, though not a penalty, is imposed in the statute as liquidated damages for the "retention of a workman's pay". They are so denominated in the statute and they are intended to provide "compensation" for injury suffered by a wrongful act which "may well result in damages too obscure and difficult of proof for estimate other than by liquidated damages." (Overnight Motor Co. v. Missel,
RIPPEY, LEWIS and DESMOND, JJ., concur with LOUGHRAN, J.; LEHMAN, Ch. J., dissents in part in separate opinion in which CONWAY and THACHER, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed. (See