Case Name: James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Meyer FEINBERG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-07-31
Citations: 236 F.2d 9
Docket Number: No. 88, Docket 23464
Parties: James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Meyer FEINBERG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 236
Pages: 9–13

Head Matter:
James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Meyer FEINBERG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88, Docket 23464.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 18, 1956.
Decided July 31, 1956.
, Benjamin Cooper, New York City,; for defendant-appellant.
' - Stuart Rothmá’n, Solicitor, Bessie-Mar-golin, Asst. Sol., Harry A. Tuell, Attorney, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., John A. Hughes, Regional Attorney, New York City, for plaintiff-appel-lee. ' . - ' ' •
Before MEDINA, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We think our decision in Mitchell v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 235 F.2d 942, requires a modification of the judgment below. The facts are stated in Judge Galston's opinion below, 123 F.Supp. 899.
It is true that under the Feinberg contract, an employee may receive greater compensation, in terms of hourly rates, for weeks in which he works four days (or less) than in weeks in which he works five days. This incident, however, is not violative of the Act and constitutes, in our judgment, insufficient ground to differentiate the case from Hartford. We hold that there was error in the conclusions that the contract did not meet the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and that the defendant had failed to pay required overtime for work in excess of 40 hours.
The violation of the record-keeping provisions of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 211(c) and 215(a) (5), we think was fully proved and properly enjoined.
Modified.