George P. Shultz, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
George P. Shultz, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Edward Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC (ca6, 2017-06-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edward Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC (2×)
6th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Clemens Pottery and its progeny do not lessen the standard of proof for showing that a FLSA violation occurred.” 575 F.3d at 602 ; see also Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1048—49; Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir. 1969) (per curiam); Porter v. Leventhal, 160 F.2d 52, 58 (2d Cir. 1946); Kemmerer v. ICI Ams.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roseann Duchon v. Cajon Company
6th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate." Id. at 687-88 (citation omitted). 28 See also Schultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969), quoting Mt.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roseann DUCHON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAJON COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
6th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 , 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1945); Schultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited "see" Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC
N.D.W. Va. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687-88 , 66 S.Ct. 1187 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Carter v. Panama Canal Co., 463 F.2d 1289, 1293 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1012 , 93 S.Ct. 441 , 34 L.Ed.2d 306 (1972); see Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969) (where employees presented evidence of work for which they were improperly compensated, burden shifted to employer “ ‘to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn f…
discussed Cited "see" Fegley v. Higgins
6th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687-88 , 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Carter v. Panama Canal Co., 463 F.2d 1289, 1293 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1012 , 93 S.Ct. 441 , 34 L.Ed.2d 306 (1972); see Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969) (where employees presented evidence of work for which they were improperly compensated, burden shifted to employer ‘“to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference, to be d…
discussed Cited "see" Fegley v. Higgins
6th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687-88 , 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Carter v. Panama Canal Co., 463 F.2d 1289, 1293 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1012 , 93 S.Ct. 441 , 34 L.Ed.2d 306 (1972); see Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969) (where employees presented evidence of work for which they were improperly compensated, burden shifted to employer " 'to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Edward Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC (2×)
6th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Clemens Pottery and its progeny do not lessen the standard of proof for showing that a FLSA violation occurred.” 575 F.3d at 602 ; see also Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir.1969) (per curiam); Porter v. Leventhal, 160 F.2d 52, 58 (2d Cir.1946); Kemmerer v. ICI Ams.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Usery v. Chef Italia
E.D. Pa. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583, 584 (6th Cir., 1969).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hodgson v. Elm Hill Meats of Kentucky, Inc.
E.D. Ky. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 , 66 S.Ct. 1187 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1945); see also Shultz v. Tarheel Coals, Inc., 417 F.2d 583 (6 Cir. 1969); and Wirtz v. McClure, 333 F.2d 45 (10 Cir. 1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George P. SHULTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant,
v.
TARHEEL COALS, INC. Et Al., Appellees
19359.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 8, 1969.
417 F.2d 583
1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10515
Carin Clauss, Nashville, Tenn., Harold C. Nystrom, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Associate Solicitor, Robert E. Nagle, Le Roy Morgan, Attorneys, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., Jeter S. Ray, Regional Attorney, Nashville Tenn., on brief, for appellant., J. W. Craft, Jr., Hazard, Ky., Craft & Haynes, Hazard, Ky., on brief for appel-lees.
Weick, McCree, Brown.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

The Secretary of Labor brought a civil contempt proceeding charging appel-lees with failing to comply with an injunction prohibiting them from violating the minimum wage and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.). The Secretary sought an order requiring appellees to purge themselves of contempt by making restitution of unpaid minimum wages and by paying a compensatory fine. The Secretary further alleged that appellees had also violated the overtime and discriminatory discharge provisions of the Act, and he sought an enlargement of the injunction to prohibit such violations and sought restitution of unpaid overtime compensation and restitution of earnings lost by the employee who was discriminatorily discharged.

At the conclusion of the Secretary’s proof, the District Judge, on motion of appellees, dismissed the proceeding. He made no findings or conclusions except to indicate from the bench that the proof was not sufficiently definite as to the hours worked to support restitution of minimum wage or overtime compensation.

There was evidence that the appellees’ records were inadequate. There was also evidence that employees had in fact performed work for which they were improperly compensated both as to minimum and overtime compensation and from which the amount and extent of that work could be determined as a matter of “just and reasonable inference.” The burden therefore shifted to appellees “to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the [Secretary’s] evidence.” Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1945). Accordingly, the Secretary’s claim for restitution to the employees of minimum and overtime compensation should not have been dismissed at the conclusion of his proof.

Further, since the Secretary was also seeking an enlargement of the injunction to include a prohibition against violation of the overtime and discriminatory discharge provisions and was seeking back pay for the employee discharged, and since there was evidence of failure to pay at least some overtime compensation and evidence of such a discharge, these claims should not have been dismissed at the conclusion of the Secretary’s proof.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this order.