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: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 19 2017, @05:11AM
Khalliw as usual knows more than judges about ruling on law.
There were rulings that agreed with me. This appeal was actually only one of three. And the ruling is on a simple grammatical issue which shouldn't have been an issue.
And of course you have a political spin...
And you should be thinking of the political "spin" too. The judge who actually wrote the ruling was notorious before they became a judge for legal rationalization of a desired course of action. And we see that in the present ruling.