Opinion ID: 1493191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Liquidated Damages Provision of the Act.

Text: One last point remains for our determination, and that involves the interpretation of Section 16(b) of the Act, 52 Stat. 1069 (1938), 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b) Section 16(b) provides: Any employer who violates the provisions of section 6 [206] or section 7 [207] of this Act [title] shall be liable    in the amount of    unpaid overtime compensation    and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Is this provision of the law as to liquidated damages mandatory or discretionary? Since the Act has been violated in good faith in this case, we would indeed like to hold that it is discretionary. It seems a keen injustice for employers bewildered by strange legislation and confused by divergent authority in the courts to be subjected to such a measure. Yet no matter how much we lament its harshness, the Section appears to be mandatory and virtually all the courts have so construed it. St. John v. Brown, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 385; Williams v. General Mills, D.C., 39 F.Supp. 849; Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 275; Thompson v. Daugherty, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 279; Emerson v. Mary Lincoln Candies, Inc., Sup.Ct., 174 Misc. 353, 20 N.Y.S.2d 570; Reeves v. Howard County Refining Co., D.C., 33 F. Supp. 90; Magann v. Long's Baggage Transfer Co., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 742; Lefevers v. General Export Iron & Metal Co., D.C., 36 F.Supp. 838; Hargrave v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. (D.C.E.D.Okl.) 42 F.Supp. 908; Moss v. Postal Telegraph Co. (D.C.M.D.Ga.) 42 F.Supp. 807; McMillan v. Wilson & Co., 4 Wage Hour Rept. 409 (D.Minn.Ramsey Co.); Wagner v. Eastate of Abe Field, 4 Wage Hour Rept. 392 (Sup.Ct.Ind.); Roberts v. Hoarel, 4 Labor Cases 60648; Abroe v. Lindsay Bros. Co., Minn., 300 N.W. 457. The use of the word wilful in Section 16(a) defining criminal liability under the Act and its omission in Section 16(b) defining civil liability would seem to indicate that the employer's good faith is immaterial under Section 16(b). The only case we have been able to find which refused to apply Section 16(b) in the case of a good faith violation of the Act is Clour v. Jones, (D.C.E.D.Okl.) 42 F.Supp. 700. While we are extremely sympathetic with the sentiments which prompted the Court to recoil from a mandatory application of the Section in that case, we are unable to agree with the result. Such matters are for Congress and not for the courts. The views we have expressed throughout this opinion are in accord with those expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the very recent decision of Bumpus v. Continental Baking Co., 124 F.2d 549, decided Dec. 10, 1941. For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the lower court is reversed and the case remanded with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.