explaining that Congress "considered it unfair to require the inclusion of contractual premiums not required by the Act in the [regular rate], thereby making the employer pay `overtime on overtime'" and "fair to employers to give them a credit for certain contractual premiums paid against the statutory overtime they might owe"
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Congress "considered it unfair to require the inclusion of contractual premiums not required by the Act in the [regular rate], thereby making the employer pay `overtime on overtime'" and "fair to employers to give them a credit for certain contractual premiums paid against the statutory overtime they might owe"
- “[T]he [FLSA] is violated even if the employer eventually pays the overtime amount that was due.”
- noting that the FLSA requires that overtime payments be timely made
- The “FLSA is ‘remedial and humanitarian in purpose,’ and ‘must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILLIAMS, Senior District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result set forth in Judge Clay’s opinion. I write separately to say that I believe that this opinion correctly follows the rules of statutory interpretation. Also, I agree with the opinion of the Seventh Circuit in Howard v. City of Springfield, 274 F.3d 1141 (7th Cir.2001). I am of the opinion that the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of the Substantive History section of this opinion have no application in this case and, at most, are dictum, in which I do not concur.
With regard to Judge Siler’s dissenting opinion, his position has merit. However, if the law is to be corrected it should be done so by Congress or the administrative agency and not by the Court.