Legal Opinion

James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Meyer Feinberg

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 31, 1956No. 88, Docket 23464PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We think our decision in Mitchell v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 235 F.2d 942, requires a modification of the judgment below. The facts are stated in Judge Galston’s opinion below, 123 F.Supp. 899.

It is true that under the Feinberg contract, an employee may receive greater compensation, in terms of hourly rates, for weeks in which he works four days (or less) than in weeks in which he works five days. This incident, however, is not violative of the Act and constitutes, in our judgment, insufficient ground to differentiate the case from Hartford. We hold that there was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. FeinbergDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1954
  2. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Foremost Dairies, Inc., and Home Town Foods, Inc. v. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
  3. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Meyer FeinbergCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
  4. Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API