Also known as: FLSA · Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A federal statute enacted in 1938 that establishes minimum wage, overtime compensation, and child labor standards for covered employees. The statute sets a floor that employers must meet and prohibits shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced in violation of its wage and hour rules.
Forrest Falconer and other probation officers employed by the State of Maine filed suit in state court alleging that the state had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay them overtime. The state moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court dismissed the action because Congress lacked power under Article I to subject nonconsenting states to private damages suits in their own courts.
Francois Fortier and other employees of a state transit authority sued their employer for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state defended on the ground that the statute could not constitutionally reach traditional state functions. The court rejected the defense and allowed the claims to proceed because Congress may extend the statute to state and local governments under the Commerce Clause.
Felix Franco, a high school student, was charged under a federal statute prohibiting possession of a firearm in a school zone. He moved to dismiss on the ground that the statute exceeded Congress's commerce power. The court dismissed the indictment because the statute neither regulated channels or instrumentalities of commerce nor addressed activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseFreya Freeman sued her former employer under federal antidiscrimination law after being fired. During discovery the employer learned that Freeman had falsified her resume. The court held that the after-acquired evidence did not bar all relief but limited back pay to the date the employer discovered the misconduct.
Christine McKennon worked for the Nashville Banner Publishing Company for some 30 years. She was discharged at age 62. The Banner claimed the action was part of a workforce reduction plan necessitated by cost considerations. McKennon believed her age explained the dismissal and filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. McKennon sought a variety of legal and equitable remedies available under the ADEA, including backpay. In preparation of the case, the Banner took McKennon's deposition. During the deposition, she testified that during her final year of employment she had copied several confidential documents bearing upon the company's financial condition. She showed them to her husband. Her motivation was an apprehension she was about to be fired because of her age. She removed and copied the documents for insurance and protection. A few days after these deposition disclosures, the Banner sent McKennon a letter declaring that removal and copying of the records was in violation of her job responsibilities and advising her that she was terminated. The letter recited that had it known of McKennon's misconduct it would have discharged her at once for that reason. For purposes of summary judgment, the Banner conceded its discrimination against McKennon. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Banner, holding that McKennon's misconduct was grounds for her termination and that neither backpay nor any other remedy was available to her under the ADEA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the same rationale. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The grant resolved conflicting views among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether all relief must be denied when an employee has been discharged in violation of the ADEA and the employer later discovers some wrongful conduct that would have led to discharge if it had been discovered earlier.
View caseFrancesca Fowler, a newspaper reporter, refused to disclose confidential sources to a grand jury investigating criminal activity. She was held in contempt. The court upheld the contempt citation because the First Amendment does not grant reporters a privilege to withhold information from a grand jury when the information is relevant to a criminal investigation.
In November 1969, Paul Branzburg, a staff reporter for the Courier-Journal newspaper in Louisville, Kentucky, published an article describing his observations of two individuals synthesizing hashish from marijuana in Jefferson County. The article included a photograph and stated that Branzburg had promised not to reveal the identities of the two. He was subsequently subpoenaed by the Jefferson County grand jury and refused to identify the individuals he had observed. A state trial court ordered him to answer, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition for relief. In January 1971, Branzburg published a second article detailing drug use in Frankfort, Kentucky, based on interviews with several dozen users over two weeks. He was subpoenaed by the Franklin County grand jury to testify about violations of drug statutes. The Court of Appeals denied the requested writs and rejected his First Amendment claim. This Court granted certiorari. In July 1970, Paul Pappas, a television newsman-photographer, was assigned to cover civil disorders in New Bedford, Massachusetts, involving the Black Panthers. He entered Panther headquarters under an agreement not to disclose what he saw or heard inside except for an anticipated police raid, which did not occur. Two months later, he was summoned before the Bristol County grand jury but refused to answer questions about his observations inside the headquarters. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that he must appear and testify. In February 1970, Earl Caldwell, a New York Times reporter covering the Black Panther Party in San Francisco, received a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury investigating possible violations of federal law by the group, including threats against the President. The District Court denied the motion to quash but issued a protective order. Caldwell refused to appear and was held in contempt. The Court of Appeals reversed, recognizing a qualified privilege. This Court granted certiorari and consolidated the cases.
View caseFelicia Fuentes was charged with stealing government property after taking spent shell casings from a firing range. She argued that she believed the casings had been abandoned. The court reversed her conviction because the statute required proof that she knew the property belonged to the United States at the time of the taking.
In December 1948, Morissette went hunting on a large tract of land in Michigan that the Government had used as a practice bombing range for the Air Force. Spent bomb casings from the range had been dumped into heaps and left exposed to the weather for four years or more. Morissette collected three tons of the casings, flattened them at a nearby farm, and sold them for eighty-four dollars. Morissette worked as a fruit stand operator in the summer and as a trucker and scrap iron collector in the winter. He was an honorably discharged veteran of World War II who had a good reputation among his neighbors. He loaded the casings onto his truck and transported them in broad daylight without any effort to conceal what he was doing. When authorities began an investigation, Morissette voluntarily and candidly told them the whole story, explaining that he believed the casings were abandoned and that he had no intention of stealing them. He was indicted for unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly stealing and converting property of the United States valued at eighty-four dollars in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. At trial, the District Court refused to permit Morissette to show that he thought the property was abandoned or to argue that he lacked criminal intent. The court instructed the jury that if it believed the government testimony, Morissette was guilty, and the jury convicted him. The court sentenced him to two months in prison or a fine of two hundred dollars. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseState sovereign immunity prevents private suits against nonconsenting states in their own courts on federal claims such as Fair Labor Standards Act claims when Congress acts under Article I powers. Congress cannot subject states to private damages actions in state court without their consent.
Supporting sources
Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act to state and local governments. States are protected from inappropriate federal regulation primarily through their participation in the federal political process rather than through judicially defined limits on federal power.
Supporting sources
A state employee may obtain prospective injunctive relief against a state officer under Ex parte Young but cannot recover money damages from the state itself because of sovereign immunity. Parallel actions in state court are likewise barred absent consent.
Supporting sources
…are within Congress' power to regulate. Id. , at 37. In United States v. Darby , 312 U. S. 100 (1941), the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act, stating: "The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect…