of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C 201, et seq.), herein referred to as the Act.
2. Defendant's employees, as described in Findings 4 and 6 were "engaged in commerce" and "in the production of goods for commerce" and included employees handling or otherwise working on such goods within the meaning of the Act.
3. Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of section 3(a) (4) of the Act under the Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments of 1966 (80 Stat. 830), 29 U.S.C. 203(a) (4). Shultz v. Brookhaven General Hospital, 305 F. Supp. 424 (DC ND Texas 1969), reversed and remanded on other grounds, 436 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1970), on remand see 20 WH 54.
4. The statutory provision for an injunction against future violations and for the payment of wages due its employees as a result of the company's past violations are requirements imposed for violation of the statute and are remedies appropriate to its enforcement. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259, (3 Cir. 1970), cert. den. 398 U.S. 905, 90 S. Ct. 1696, 26 L. Ed. 2d 64; Shultz v. American Can Co., 424 F.2d 356 (8 Cir. 1970).
5. The work performed by the orderlies (male) and the aides (female) required substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility and was performed under similar working conditions. Hodgson v. Lancaster Hospital Association, 20 WH 139 (ED. Pa. July 1971); Hodgson v. Hubbard, 20 WH 248 (DC Tenn. 1971).
6. In considering the substantial equality of the effort expended by males and females, both physical and mental effort required to be performed on the job must be weighed. Hodgson v. Daisy Manufacturing Co., 317 F. Supp. 538, 19 WH Cases; 725 (WD Ark. 1970).
7. The occasional performance of duties by orderlies requiring greater physical effort than work performed by the aides does not render the jobs unequal which are otherwise equal. Shultz v. Brookhaven General Hospital, 305 F. Supp. 424 reversed and remanded on other grounds 436 F.2d 719 (5 Cir. 1970), on remand, 20 WH 54; Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3 Cir. 1970).
8. The higher wages paid orderlies by defendant are not justified by any of the exceptions to the Act. Hodgson v. Pacific Telephone Co., 20 WH 411 and 454 (USDC ND Calif., Dec., 1971); Hodgson v. Fairmont Supply Co., 20 WH 415 (CA-4), Jan. 1972; on remand see 20 WH 627; Hodgson v. South Shore Convacare, Inc., 20 WH 490 (USDC ND Ill., Jan. 1972).
9. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction permanently enjoining defendant from violating the provisions of section 6 of the Act and from withholding payment of minimum wage compensation due employees under the Act. Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259; Hodgson v. Lancaster Hospital Association, 20 WH 139 (ED Pa., July, 1971).
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.