Legal Document

359 U.S. 290 79 Supreme Court Reporter 756 3 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 815 James Pacific KF135 P2 MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, Department Petitioner,v.KENTUCKY FINANCE COMPANY, Inc., and Kentucky Discount, Incorporated Number 161. Argued March 3, 1959. Decided April 20, Miss Bessie Margolin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Harold or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Levin, New York City, respondents. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner, brought suit to enjoin respondents from violating overtime record-keeping provisions Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Statutes-at-Large 1060, as amended, 29 Code KF62 § 201 et seq., Annotated KF65 U5 seq. Respondents, two closely affiliated subsidiaries a common corporate parent, share an office in Louisville, Kentucky. They are engaged business making personal loans, amounts up $300, individuals, purchasing conditional sales contracts dealers furniture appliances. Respondents services manager nine full-time part-time employees. 2 By pretrial stipulation ad c oncessions at trial, effect conceded that injunction should issue unless their employees exempted statute by 13(a)(2) thereof, which provides such requirements shall not apply '* * any employee employed retail service establishment, more than 50 per centum establishment's annual dollar volume goods is made within State establishment located. A 'retail establishment' mean 75 whose (or both) resale recognized particular industry; *' 4 As concededly percent respondents' loan discount with residents none it involves 'resale' transactions, sole question involved this litigation whether be considered establishment(s),' 'sales services,' meaning 13(a)(2). The burden is, course, upon establish they entitled benefit 13 exemption, since coverage apart exemption admitted. 5 After trial District found had proved 13(a)(2), issued restraining further Act. 150 F.Supp. 368. Appeals reversed. 6 Cir., 254 Federal Reporter, 2nd 8. We granted certiorari, 358 811, 39, 55, resolve conflict between decision court below First Circuit Aetna Finance company versus Mitchell, 247 190. Until 1949, Act 'Any greater part selling servicing intrastate commerce.' Administrator early ruled companies other entities what may broadly called 'financial industry' were scope exemption.1 When Congress amended 1949 provided pre-1949 rulings interpretations remain inconsistent amended. 63 920, 16(c), 208 note. narrow before us, then, amendment broadened section so embrace companies. 7 present differs its predecessor primarily addition definition term establishment,' being one '75 argue plainly come because (1) 'not resale,' (2) activities financial industry end' industry. claim intent was provide 'local' exempt statute, precisely kind designed embrace. 8 do think us can disposed simply. Government points out concept 'sale' inherently inapposite lending money interest, urges cannot properly said 'saes services' them into play even if 'retail' concede sale 'goods,' but insist constitute 'service' intendment characterizing credit use money.2 9 This case where perforce we must attempt controversy true equivocal statutory language unaided reliable extrinsic guide legislative intention. On contrary, debates reports reference detailed explicit. To those materials now turn. 10 history demonstrates beyond doubt acting implementation specific particularized purpose. Before Administrator, interpreting then nowhere defined had, excluding institutions, enterprise generally would qualify receipts derived 'to private persons satisfy wants,' on theory 'nonretail.'3 administratively announced 'business use' test approved Roland Electrical Walling, 326 657, 66 413, 90 L.Ed. 383. 11 dissatisfied construction over objection who sought have his legislatively confirmed,4 passed away rule individual consumers could deciding substitute flexible test, under transactions did involve 'resale,' retail. find nothing suggests intended broaden fields apply. Rather, time again plain change prior law only possible enterprises otherwise eligible existing concepts achieve though 25 individuals consumption, field retail.5 Thus field, previously been regardless class dealt, thought financing,' remained unaffected 12 Any residual score dispelled explicit repeated statements sponsors amendatory legislation House Senate 'The does banks, insurance companies, building associations, newspapers, telephone gas electric utility telegraph etc., there no these industries. Where businesses specifically *.'6 (Emphasis added.) It well settled exemptions narrowly construed. Atlantic Phillips, 324 490, 493, 65 807, 808, 89 1095; see also Powell Cartridge Co., 339 497, 517, 70 755, 766, 94 1017. In light abundant pointed evidence intend like justified straining bring literal words exemption. Reversed. 14 STEWART took consideration case. Interpretative Bull. 6, 1942 WH Manual 326, 29—31. That ruling has carried version CFR, 1958 Supp., 779.10. See 14, 18. supported so-called Lesinski bill, adopted Administrator's establishment.' H.R.Conf.Rep., 95 Cong.Rec. 14931, U.S.Code Cong.Service Page 2263: '(§ 13(a)(2)) clarifies defining stating conditions clarification needed order obviate sweeping courts Walling (326 0 L .Ed. 383); *'; Report Majority Conferees, 14877: conference agreement exempts establishments traditionally regarded statement Senator Holland, sponsor Senate: substantial difference recommendation (which written statute) propose way artificial distinction hand *.' 12498. For authoritative expressions regard, 11115—11116, 12492—12493, 12496, 12502, 12506, 12508. 14932, 2265. 14877; 12505 12506. urge application 'credit companies,' restricted comercial agree observation supra, page 193, contention 'quite unconvincing.' There indicates using companies' specialized sense, indeed own expert witnesses testified institutions.' clear Conferees used nor less deal credit, do.

Classification Label: 6