# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. (No. 217) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386404_0036%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1943 ## Text OCTOBER TERM, 1943 No. 217: GAR CAMPBELL, SALLIE BAKER anp ———— BLACK, ° . vs. HOLLY SILL FRUIT PRODUCTS, INC. 0 PORE LARS TOMER IRE 4 sil gs 2 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AND BRIEF. IN SUP- PORT THEREOF. ill Sell s Grorce PaLMER GARRETT, Counsel -for Petitioners. SUPREME COURT OF THE: UNITED “STATES ~~ WILMA E. ADDISON, ERNESTINE ©. LYLES, ED-_ Petitioners, ath ee INDEX. Sussect Inpex. wns Page -; "Petition for a writ of certiorari —- 9 : 1. Nature of the ease and rulings. below. Sait | Statutory provisions: sustaining jurisdiction 3 Question - presented | 7 Reasons relied upon for allowance of writ Brief in support of petition * ~~ & Grounds on which the jurisdiction of.this Court is invoked _. * eye ae» Statement of the case. Rie Aaa she ee - Specification of errors assigned a Argument ...... 1W.. Question : Was the Court of Appeals in error in holding ineffective, i in the cireum- _ stances set forth “in the findings of. the District Judge, the administrator’s defini- . tions of “Area of Production’’? a; - Conclusion Le i CRN oe wr aI A ae 21 ae Tage OF Cannes Crrep. ——~ Abram v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co., 46 Fed. ope: , = : 969, 49 Fed. Supp. 393 . 14,16 — Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. (2d) 11 16 Boyer v. Miller Hatcheries, 42 Fed. Supp. 3t . 16 * Federal Trade Comm.v. Raladam Co. ., 283 U.S. 648, 2 - T5L, Ed. 1324... .. 14 ' Fleming v. Farmers Pecial Co., 128 F. (2d) 404 - . 6,8 ' Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Buttow Co. » 113 F. (2d) © _ EP ee ai OCS re re oa Gray v: Powell, 314 U. 8.402; 86 L. E Ed. 301 | ee ; Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc., v. Addison, —¥. (2d) . > RPS TAC ata spe ag 11 : Lofther v. First Nat. Bank of C hicnpe, 48 Fed. Supp. 692 : ; ; 16 Martin v. Mobi? 2 Wheat, 31, 6L. mn. Oe. " 7358 ii : _- INDEX. Maryland Casualty Co. v. United vegas 251 U.S. Me a IS hr i ke eae 1 ee Opp Cotton Mills-v.Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, 132 ‘U.S. 126, 85 L. Ed. 624 ..... 15 _ Overstreet v. North Shore Corporation, - — U. Ss. —, 87 L. Ed. 423-...... LL pa Oa UY OA a mb Redlands Foothill Groves y. Jacobs, 30 Fed. Supp. BS oN aa Gay pe ere aan ia a es Silgaro v. Port Compress, Co., 45 Fed. Supp. 88. i _ Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. 8. 141, 84 L. Ed. 1124. Peas / UL S.'v. American Trucking Association, Tne. ¥ 310 ae | Re Pe NS 21 U.S. v. Bush, 310 U. S. 371, 84 L. Ed. 1259. cee ‘17 U.S. v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 85 L. Ed. 609. . 15 ‘U.S. v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 10 L. Ed. 689... ® w... ULS.V. Shreveport Grain & El. Co., 287 U. ‘S. 77, 7 a6 ov J ee a as | 17 StTaTuTEs CITED. 4‘ongressional Reeord of—. - _ July 27, 1937, pages 2895, 9904, 9906-7, 9910 14 - July 30, 1937, pages 10179-81,. 10191 14 July 31, 1937, pages 10246-7, 10267, 10276 ee December 17, 1937, page 9319 neat 14 May, 23, 1938, page 9626... ..... ii - May 24 and 25; 1938, pages 9741, 9746 a ahs a Fair Labor- Standards Act (29 U.S. C. A., Sections ' - .201, et seq., 52 U.S. Statutes 1060, et + seq): AE Section 2 Leh e Batis pve Section 3 oe eee 18 ‘Section 13 (a) 10. ; 2,5 7,8, 14, 18, 21 Federal Register, Volume 3, page 2536 __. 14 ‘udicial Code, Section 240, as amended by the ‘Act . of February 18, 1925, 43 Statutes 938, 28 1, S. CAs 347 - Regulation #5362, paragraph E of the Adminis- - trator of the Wage and Hour Division of the De- __ . ° partment of Labor a Senate’Report #884, 75th Congress,. First Session dd ~! — SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES © OCTOBER TERM, 1%3_ WILMA E. ADDISON, ERNESTINE C. LYLES, ED- GAR CAMPBELL, SALLIE BAKER AND LUTHER BLACK, vs. Soe Petitioners, HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUC ‘TS, INC, 7 Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. / : To the Honorable Justices of the Suprem me Court of the United States: Wilma kK. Addison, Ernestine C. Lyles, Edgar Campbell, Sallie Baker, and-Luther Black, Petitioners, respectfully petition the Court for a writ of certiorari to rev iew a deci- sion of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cireuit, in a certain cause therein lately pending between Holly Hill Fruit Products, Ine., Appellant, and . _ the said Petitioners, Appellees, wherein a judgment was ' rendered by said Cireuit Court of ——* on June 24, 1943, lp ; ' \. County, which had a population of over three thousand per- reversing the judgment of the District Court, ‘and in sup- port. of their said petition, ‘petitioners. (plaintiffs in the. District — respectfully show : ewe LN / ‘The matter in controversy in this cause turns upon the minimum wage and maximum hour’ requirements of ‘ the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U. S. Code Annotated, See- tidns 201 et seqg., 52 U: S..Statutes 1060 et seq.), and more particularly Section 13 (a) 10, whereby there is éxcepted- ’ _ from the coverage ‘of the Act ‘‘any individual employed within the area of production (as defined by thé Adminis. . trator), engaged in handling, packing, storing, ginning, compressing, pasteurizing, dryi ing, preparing in their raw or natural state, or canning of agricultural or horticultural. “commodities for ‘market 2 >> The District Court found that: ; The defendant was engaged in canhing fruit during the | period from November 14, }938, to May 26, 1939, and from November 16, 1939, to March 30, 1940 (R. 187), and that throughout said two seasonal periods of operation, defend-— _ant employed at its establishment in the town of Davenport, Polk County, Florida, in its citrus fruit canning operations and ,processes, more than two hundred ‘‘piece workers*’’ ( R.-187) and forty-seven ‘‘hour hands,’’ (R. 213); that said town is a town of six hundred and fifty population accord- .; ing to the 15th United States Census, 1930, situated within four miles of an incorporated town, Haines City, in said v4 ‘sons according to both the 15th Census of 1930, and the 16th Census of 1940 (R. 187)... During the first of these two periods, by visi promulgated October 20, 1938, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor de- fined an individual as employed in the ‘‘area of production”’ if engagéd in such work on a farm, and on.agricultéral or _ horticultural commodities’ prdduced exclusively on such farm, or if such commodities are obtained by the establish- | ment where he is employed from farms in the immediate * locality, and the number of employees in such establishment . does not:exceed seven (R. 187 and 188): This regulation _ remained in effect through April, 1939, when, following a séries of administrative hearings, the Administrator added a paragraph to his said definition as follows: ‘‘(e) with: respect to perishable or seasonable fresh fruits arfd vege- tables, if he is engaged in handling, packing, storing, .dry- ing, preparing in their raw or natural state, or canning such > , products for market i in an establishment which is located in the open country or in a rural community and. which obtains all of its products from farms in its immediate lo- cality. As used in this subsection (e) ‘open country’ or ‘rural community” shall not include any city oF town of | 2,500 or greater population. according to the 15th United States Census, 1930, and ‘immediate locality’ shall not in- ai “dude any distance of more than 10 miles’’ (R. 187-188). On June 15, 1939, effective June 17, 1939, the Adminis- trator ‘again amended his definition aforesaid to provide. that the individual shall be regarded as employed in the “area: of production”’ (a) if he performs those operations — on materials-all of which come from farms in the genetal vicinity of the establishment where he is employed arid the number of employees engaged in those operations in that establishment does not exceed’ seven, or * ° * (d).if he ’ performs ‘those operations on materials all of which come _from farms in the immediate locality of the establishment where he is employed and the establishment is located .in the open country or in a rural community. As used in this sub-section (d) * “immediate locality’’ shall not include any distance of more than ten miles and “open country” or 2p es | “o , & 4 ‘ ‘rural community *’ shall not include any city or town of 2,500 or greater population according to the 15th United States Census, 1940’’ (R. 188-189).. The District Court further found :° ‘“‘VII. In ‘and throughovt the said two seasonal periods of operation, the establishment of the defendant did not obtain all of its agricultura! and horticultural commodities ; or materials from farms in the ‘immediate locality’ or’ ‘general vicinity’ ofthe said establishment as defined by the Administrator. An appreciable portion thereof came from a distance beyond the range’ of usual farin: travel. The géweral vicinity of defendant’s. establishment was not sparsely settled, there being several towns and communities within a radius of Jess than ten miles. Thus, ‘considerable fruit was canned and’ processed in the de- fendant’s eStablishment duritig said season which came from: the neighborhood of Haines City, which is within’ four miles and has several commercial canning plants operating in conipetition to defendant’s establishment. Also considerable. fruit. was cated and. processed in the defendant’s establishment during the seasons in eontro- versy, coming from the neighborhood of communities as far away from Davenport as Lake Wales—20 miles—Bab- son Park, several miles more than 20, Dundee 14 miles, Loughman 7 or 8 miles. Much of this fruit was hauled past other canning factories. to reach the defendant’s es--— tablishment’’ (R. 192). =e : " ; “VITL. In and during said two seasonal periods ofsoper- “ation, the: establishment of the .defendant is not located in the ‘open country’ or a ‘rural comniunity,’ as de- fined by the Administrator in his said several definitions, because there was within the range of usual farm travel, - at a. point not more than four miles away, a town of more Way ee than 2500 iii aceording to the applicable United States ‘Census’’ (R. 192-3). ‘ “IX. There was practically no téstimony showing the percentage of the fruit processed by the defendant estab- » jishment which. was procured from groves. located .at a distance of more than’ ten miles by the shortest road haul from the establishment; almost all of the. testimony on the distance of the point of origin of the commodities processed by said establishment during said two sefsonal periods had reference to a ten mile radius, ‘asthe’ crow flies’ ’?> “(R. 193). “X, The evidence discloses that the defendant is not an establishment operated by the farmers raising the com modities processed, and that the procéssing is not done by the farmers through the use of their own farm labor , on their own farms. On: the contrary, although. its mem- bership consisted of fruit growers owning groves in two certain townships in Polk County, Florida, the def ‘endant accepted a considerable portion of its commodities from groves of non-inembers ‘and, in fact, processed many thousands of boxes of fruit deliv ered to the eanning plant by a speculative. nen-fiember, the Grapefruit Distributors, Inc., a_corporation. The employees of the de fendant were ‘ not hired by the.members, nor were they farm labor. On: the contrary, they. were hired aby the defendant corpora- tion and did no farm or agricultural labor. They were sim- ply industrial employ ees, The defendant corporation was not itself engaged in agricultural or- horticultural labor or work. It was a comitercial industrial concern entitled to earn a reasonable profit from canning ffuit”’. (R. 193). The District Court “eoheluded that the total exemption intended by Section 13 (a) (W) (29 U.S. @. A. See. 2138 (a) (10), of|the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938) was in- applicable to the defendant (R. 194-197)... - , . & , : t The Court of Appeals found it to be admitted that the wage and hour requirethents of the Act were not observed * (R. 225) but adopted the holding in the prior case of Fleming v. Farmers Peanut-Co. (CCAS, 128 Fed. (2nd) 404), decided by the same Court of Appeals, that the limi- tation in the Administrator’s definitions as to the number of employees was void (R. 226). The Court: of Appeals held that: As to the period from Noveinber 14, 1938 to April 19, 1939, the evidence showed that 97.24% of the commodities came from farms. located within 10 miles, 96/100 of 1%. could not be traced, and the balance came from farms less than 25 miles distant, and that “‘it would “be most unreasonable to say that the nexfligible quantity obtained from a slightly greafer distance should affect - the statutory concept of area of production’’ (R. 226). As- _ to the period from April 30, 1939, to May 26, 1939, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence showed that ‘*more 97% of the commodities processed came from farms ~ “located within 10 miles of-the.plant. * * * The purchase of so great a portion within a ten mile radius of the plant, gud the acquisition of the negligible balance from farms’ within 25 miles were sufficient to prove that the products were obtained within the immediate locality’? (R. 226-7). And, as to the period from November 16, 1939, to March 30, 1940, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence showed that ‘‘during this period 91.39% of the frhit processed - - was purchased from farms within ten miles of ‘the plant, and an additional 4% came from farms within twenty, five miles; and none yas known. to have come from, any vreater .distance’’ (R. 227). Thereupon, the Court o Appeals held that: ‘*In ordinary usuge the words ‘gene ‘ral - Vicinity’ indicate a larger area than is meant by ‘immedi- -ate locality’ and a distance of 25 miles in this lay of highly developed travel facilities is not beyond the ranze of usual farm trav el’ (R. 227). © And, finally, **that these / j 7 appellees were employed within the area of production + during the entire period involved here, and that the mini-— mum wage and maximam hour provisions of the Act did — not apply to -them’’ (R. 228). 1. Jurisdiction is invoked under Section 240 of ‘the Ju- diciary Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Statutes 938, 28 U. 8. C. A. Section 347. _ 2 The statute of the United States involved: is the Fair. Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29.U. S. C. A. Sections 201 et seq.; 52 U. S. Statutes 1060 et seq.) particularly ion 13 (a) (10) thereof, hereinbefore ‘summarized in the Krst -paragraph of this petition. = 3. The judgment to be reviewed is dated June 24, ‘A. D.. 1943 , <3 CG. , The qtestion. a ey is whether the Court of Appeals — correctly held ineffective, in the cifeumstances set forth in the. findings of the District: Judge, the Administrator’ s* said three ‘definitions #f-**area of production.”’ , D. The said ruling and décision of the Court of Appeals is of such far*réaching extent as to call for a decision of this Court upon fhe question of federal law here involved... ° If the said. rnling and decision of the Court of Appeals is ‘suffered to stand and become a precedent, it will operate to the prejudice, not only of the petitioners, but of many other persons employed in the sonia a fruits and vege- tables. ; : Moreover, until the conflict and confusion is resolved in the seventeeg decisions of the lower courts (all district ; court decisions except the decisions ofthe Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit in the case of Fleming v. Farmers Peanut Company 128 Fed.. (2d) 404, and in this present case, construing Section 13 (a) (10) of the Act and the Administrator’s definitions of ‘‘area of produc- tion,’’) the- Administrator cannot know the scope of -his ~ powey, nor can the employers and employees intended to be included in, or excepted from, the Act know: their re- spective duties and rights under the Act. The decision of the Court of Appeals, without over- ruling the findings~of fact made by the District Judge, determines the case contrary to these findings. The decision pf the Court of Appeals renders ineffective the definition of ‘‘area of production’? promulgated by the Administrator although the Act of Congress expressly committed to him the’ power and duty to define the phrase. It disregards the spirit of the Act by exempting a whole in- dustry from the coverage of the Act. It disregards the . -rule that the Administrator’s regulation is presumed to be valid and based upon sufficient factual reasons. It dis- regards the intent of Congress as disclosed by the legis- > lative history of the Aet. It disregards the rule that ex- emptions from the scope of an Act of this type are to be strictly construed and exempts the defendant although the’ Court of Appeals concedes that the defendant is not. literally within the exemption. It invalidates the Admin- -istrator’s definitions.which are essential to the claim of _ exemption and yet disregards the corollary that, if the defi-. nitions are invalid, there can be no exemption. Prayer for Writ. . Wuekerore, petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari to _be issued under the seal of this Court, directed to the United States Cirenit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting at New Orleans, Louisiana, commanding that C ourt ‘to certify and send to this Court upon a day to be desig- nated, a full and complete transcript of the record and all proceedings in the case entitled Holly Hill Fruit Products, ‘Ine. Appellant, v. Wilma E. Addison, et al., Appellees, ‘ being Case No. 10643, in said Circuit Court of Appeals, to the end that this cause may be reviewed and determined by ~ this.Court, and that the decree of the Circuit Court of 'Appeals may: be reversed, and the petitioners may be- granted such other and further rejjef as may seem proper. GrorcE PaLMER GaRRETT, 419 Exchange Building, Orlando, Florida, ' Counsel for Petitioners. SUPREME COURT’ OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1943 . No. 217 | WILMA E. ADDISON, ERNESTINE (. LYLES, EDGAR CAMPBELL, SALLIE - BAKER, axnpn LUTHER BLACK, Petitioners, US. HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUC TS, INC., _ - Respondent. PETITIONERS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. I. @ The Opinion of the Court Below. | The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cireuit was rendered. on June 24, 1943, and is, reported as Holly Hill Fruit Products, lic. v. Wilma E, Addison, et al.,, . Case No. 10643 (C.C.-A. 5th) — F. (2d) —, Advance Sheet , No. "(not yet printed), oe by Holmes, Circuit . Judge. » 12 . I. Grounds.on Which the Suriadiction of This Court Is ; Invoked. The decision of the Court of Apgeals involves a nov vel and important problem and principle of federal law with regard to which the decisions of the lower courts are in conflict and confusion. This problem is the determination of the extent ~ to which the Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of ~ the. Department of Labor, acting under direct authority of Congress to define the phrase, ‘‘ Area of Production’, limit- ing an exemptton from the coverage of the Act can, by his ‘definition, reasonably depart f rom the dictionary meaning of the phrase in order to carry out the intent of Congress, as he determines. that intent from the legislative history of the. enactment and from hearings he has himself held. to ascer- tain the proper practical scope of the phrase and the exemp- ~ tion. This case.constitutes an important precedent for all’ District and Circuit Courts of Appeal in dealing with the _extent and. scope of the exemption granted by Section — 13 (a) (10) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.: The seven- teen decisions by various lower federal courts, including - two by the Circuit-Court of Appeals for the 5th Cireuit, on the validity and effect of the Administrator’s definition of . “area of -production’’ are at this moment in utter conflict ‘and confusion as to the effectiveness and scope of this exemption. Mm. ene Statement of the Case. ~ The petition to which this brief is attached sufficiently states all of the facts that are material to a consideration of the. questions presented. ; ‘ Hl = I V ° a ———— . ® Specification of Errors ‘hetgeill. There was no error in the District Court. We specify as error the decision of the Court of Appeals in reversing the District Court. | ARGUMENT. Question: Was the Court of Appeals in error in holding ineffective, in the circumstances set forth in the findings of the District Judge, the Administrator’ s definitions of ‘‘area of production’’? ‘Petitioners conceive. that the said ruling and decision of the Court of Appeals is erroneous, in this: Said ruling and decision overloeks;-or fails to give ‘effect to, the essential purpose of the enaetment as manifested in Section 2 of the Acty (b) ‘*It is hereby declared to be the ‘policy of this Act through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among. the séveral states, to * correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliniinate,”’ ete., the existence, in industries engaged: in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detri? mental to the niaintenance of the minimum standard of liv. ing necessary for he alth, efficienc ‘vy pnd gene ‘ral well-bei ‘ing . of workers. The whole Act is is be read together with the dee Jared purpose in mind. ; : The thought back of the Administrator's definitions is adinirably set forth in the preamble to the Administrator's first definition of the phrase-‘‘area of production’’, promul- gated by him on October 20, 1938, undér the authority given — ~ : e. ° 14. _ him by Section 13 (a). (10) of the me of Ce ongress., This _preamble reads as follows: “nm appraring x that the intent of Congress i in making the special provisions relating to the ‘area of produc- tion’ was to prevent undue disturbance .to agriculture and to exempt small businesses clearly related to agri-. . culture to employ.oceasional workers in addition to ' members of employer’s family without regard to the Wage and Hour Standards of ‘the Act, and. | ‘*It appearing that the exemption of only ae busi- nesses which employ a small: number of workers would -” not result in material inequalities between firms doing , the same type of business; and “Tt appearing that such small businesses are pre- dominantly located in the ‘open country’ or ‘rural com- munities’, receive most of their raw products from neighboring farms, and frequently employ workers who spend part of their time in actual operations; and ‘‘It appearing that the exemption herein granted to such small businesses would not defeat the declared purpose | of the Act, theréfore, in view of the ‘fore. going. o © ©» \ Vol. 3, F ede ral Register, Page » 2536. The basis for this preatuble prefixed by the Administrator to his original definition of the phrase ‘‘area of production’ is clearly given in the debates in Congress on the Act, the joint committee hearings, and the committee reports. ‘See, for example, Senate Report #884, 75th Congress, first session; C. R.. July 27, 193%, pages 9895, 9904, 9906-7, 9910; C. R. July 30, 1937, pages 10179-81, 10191; (@®% R. July 31, 1937, pages 10246-7 7, 10267, 10276; C. R. December 17, 1937, page 2319: C. R. May 23, 1938, page 9626; C. R. May | 24 and 25, 1938, pages 9741, 9746. : The debates may be considered. Federal Trade Comn. v.. Raladam Co., 283 U. S. 648, 650, 75 L. Ed. 1324;. Abram v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co., 49 Fed. Supp. 393 at 401. se e, ed 15 ’ Moreover, the said Congressional debates and reports disclose the esserttial intent of Congress in enacting the Act to include within its provisions all industrial workers and exclude agricultural workers. - That the Administrator's problem was deliberately cast upon him by Congress. and he was left with full authority to pnomulgate’ a definition, reasonably conceived to carry out the intent of Cofigress even though it.departed from the dictionary meaning of the phrase ‘‘area of production’”’, is clear from the colloquy between Senator Black and Sena- tor Schellenbach in. the course 6f the debate on the bill, as follows : Senator Black whet Senator Schellenbach what would be — the definition of ‘‘area’’, would it not be possible to define it more clearly to get the effect. Senator Schelenbach an- swered, ‘‘I gave that considerable thought. Ido not believe it is possible, and that i is something that the Board (now the* Administrator) which has ‘been accused of receiving too much power, will have ‘to decide. It would have to provide a definition of ‘immediate production area’ *’ sional Record, July 30, 1937, p. 10181). . | in resolving his definitions, the Administrator could well assume that the Art was constitutional. The Supreme * (' ourt has so held in the cases of: ce (Congres- “Opp Cotton Muls vy. Administrator of the v age and ‘Hour Division of the De ‘partment of Labor, 312 U.S. 126, 85 L. Ed. 624, and United States v. Darby,3 312 U.S. 100, &5 L. Ed. 609, Likewise, he could well assume that the intent of the Act was to cover all industrial employees engaged in commerce. Overstreet v. North Shore Corporation, —