SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I'll-take-'Grammar-Nazi'-for-$10,000,000-Alex-... dept.
A company that refused to pay its delivery drivers overtime for years has lost its bid to be a cheapskate, to the tune of $10,000,000. The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals (decision-pdf) interpreted an exception to OT laws with special care to a meaningful but missing comma. Specifically, the phrase existing in the statute is:
"..., packing for shipment or distribution of:"
The company wanted the phrase to be interpreted as:
"..., packing for shipment, or distribution of:"
Without the comma, the activity excluded from coverage is "packing". With the comma present, it would have excluded packing or distribution.
The law as it exists in all its commaless glory:
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 20 2017, @02:44AM (1 child)
And so then is the issue with being stingy with "and/or" which brings us back to, you guessed it, ambiguity. You're just too hard headed to actually see there is an alternative.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 20 2017, @03:28AM
You're just too hard headed to actually see there is an alternative.
I don't disagree that there are plenty of alternatives. It's like a parody of Cardinal Richelieu's saying about six lines by the most honest man. Any legal writing can be interpreted however you want, if you ignore the actual writing.
The judge who wrote this opinion had to strain mightily to come up with a rationalization for inserting "ambiguity" into his ruling (beyond that of the plaintiffs), but once he did, it was a simple matter to decide things the way he wanted to. And what's worst of all is that even if the ruling is completely reversed, there will be no consequence to him for this game. We should be very leery of people in power who ignore how law is written in order to get their way.