Court Opinion

ID: 9644001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:46:18.373838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:07.366760
License: Public Domain

L. HAND, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Were it not for the passage relied upon .by my brothers from Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co.,1 I should have said that, as soon as an employee was shown to be “engaged in interstate commerce” to any extent whatever, he was entitled to the protection of the Act. In that regard I should distinguish between him and an employee who was “engaged in the production of goods for commerce”; the second has a remoter relation to “commerce” than the first, and it is reasonable to require of him the devotion of more of his time to “commerce.” But, once an employee was proved to be “engaged in commerce,” I should have thought that the case ended. For that I should particularly rely upon Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co.,2 a fortiori because that decision concerned whether an employer was “engaged in the production of goods for commerce.” And I am left still more in doubt, because the passage on which we arc relying did not relate to the real issue which the court was deciding in Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., supra, 3 but was thrown out in passing. Nevertheless, the qualification, “substantial,” was mentioned as though the law was already so settled, and although the supporting citation was a decision 4 touching the “production of goods for commerce” and not engagement “in interstate commerce,” I do not feel free to disregard it. Therefore, as to the 107th Street Garage I yield my own judgment and join in sending back the case as to the employee there employed,

 317 U.S. 504, 571, 572, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460.

 327 U.S. 178, 66 S.Ct. 511.

 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L. Ed. 460.

 Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638.