Court Opinion

ID: 9680070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:18:44.845457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:25.150220
License: Public Domain

Elsijane T. Roy, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s opinion that the pertinent Arkansas statute is no longer valid. In my opinion, this issue was decided in Potlatch Forests v. Hays, 318 F. Supp. 1368 (E. D. Ark. 1970), and Hays v. Potlatch Forests, 465 F. 2d 1081 (8th Cir. 1972), affirming the district court. As noted in the majority opinion, those cases upheld the Arkansas statute upon the ground that the employer could comply with both the Federal act and the State act by paying overtime to both men and women at the rate specified in the Arkansas statutes. The majority refused to follow the Potlatch cases and cited Homemakers, Inc., Los Angeles v. Division of Indus. Welf., 356 F. Supp. 1111 (N.D. Cal. 1973), affirmed, 509 F. 2d 20 (9th Cir. 1974), as authority for holding the Arkansas statute invalid even though it differed materially from the California statute. Furthermore, the logic in the Homemakers decision is not as sound as the Potlatch1 rationale, since to apply the Homemakers doctrine would thwart the purpose of both the State and Federal statutes. Here, the choice is between invalidating the Arkansas statute and lowering wages for female employees or holding the statute valid and equalizing benefits between male and female employees. Extension of wage benefits to men by virtue of the Federal enactment is consistent with the presumption of constitutionality as to both the Arkansas law and the Civil Rights Law of 1964. The Eighth Circuit in its Potlatch opinion stated: We agree with the District Court that Congress expressly disclaimed any general preemptive intent in enacting Title VII, and that the Arkansas statute can be held invalid only if it is in conflict with the Civil Rights Act. See, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-7 and 2000h-4 [italics supplied], insofar as the Arkansas statute results in discrimination against men, we also agree with the trial court that conflict with Title VII can be avoided by requiring Potlatch to pay its male employees the same premium overtime rate which it is compelled to pay its female employees. As the trial court pointed out: “* * * “As far as Act 191 of 1915 [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-601] is concerned, an employer can comply with it and with the Civil Rights Act by paying daily overtime to both men and women, * * *. The Arkansas statute does not say that women must be paid more than men; it simply says that they must be paid daily overtime without making a similar requirement as to men [italics supplied].” For compelling reasons the Arkansas overtime act should be preserved. It is a law which serves untold numbers of working people. Neither repeal of the law nor judicial legislation is necessary, but a fair and reasonable accommodation is warranted. Any conceivable disharmony between the State and Federal laws may be fairly accommodated by adopting the extension of benefits rule. There is nothing more fundamental to the welfare of the Arkansas citizenry than adequate wages, and nothing more essential than the law’s even application in this vital area. To uphold the existing law would produce the proper balance by preserving its benefits while fulfilling Title VII’s promise of fair employment practices. Furthermore, there is ample precedent to support the judicial extension of benefits. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S. Ct. 1764, 36 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1973), and Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 469 F. 2d 466 (10th Cir. 1972). Objections are also made to the Arkansas act on the grounds that the permit requirements are invalid and consequently the entire statute must fall. We do not agree with the conclusion of the majority that the permit provisions are not separable from the wage provisions of the statute. It is a well established rule of law that if a statute is valid in part and invalid in part, then the valid part may stand provided it fairly answers the object or purpose of the passage of the law, and the deletion of the invalid portion will not make the statute meaningless. The absence of the permit provisions certainly would not make the wage-hour part of the Arkansas overtime statute meaningless. The permit provisions do not affect the statute’s substance, but are merely additional aids in enforcement of the wage provisions. In Brooks v. Wilson, 165 Ark. 477, 265 S.W. 53 (1924), we said: . . . [I]f any special provision of an act be unconstitutional and can be stricken out without affecting the validity of the residue of the act, it will be done, and the remainder of the act allowed to stand. Cribbs v. Benedict, 64 Ark. 555; State v. New York Life Ins. Co., 119 Ark. 314; State v. Woodruff, 120 Ark. 406; and Davis v. State, 126 Ark. 260. See also Levy v. Albright, 204 Ark. 657, 163 S.W. 2d 529 (1942). Therefore, even if the permit provisions are invalidated the remainder of the statute would suffice to effect the object of having employees receive premium pay for overtime work. Accordingly, I think the case should be reversed and remanded.  Normally if there is a conflict between the circuits on an issue of law Arkansas courts give preference to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals interpretation since Arkansas is one of the states in that circuit.