McLeod v. Threlkeld

Background

A cook worked in a cook-and-dining car attached to a traveling maintenance gang on the Texas & New Orleans Railroad. He was employed by a private contractor who provided meals to the railroad’s maintenance workers; the dining car moved along the tracks and followed the crew when needed, and the railroad deducted meal charges from employees’ pay and remitted them to the contractor. The cook sued under the federal wage-and-hour law, claiming he was covered because he worked with a crew of an interstate carrier.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the cook’s work counted as work “in commerce” under the wage-and-hour law. The Court applied a narrower test: employees must be actually in the movement of interstate commerce or so closely related to that movement as to be a part of it. The majority concluded that preparing and serving meals that are consumed apart from the workers’ transportation is remote from the movement of interstate commerce. Because the cook supplied personal needs rather than participating in the movement of goods or passengers, the Court held he was not engaged in commerce and therefore not covered by the law.

Real world impact

The decision means cooks and similar dining-car or onboard support workers employed by contractors for maintenance crews will often be excluded from federal minimum-wage and overtime protections when their duties are remote from the actual movement of interstate commerce. It clarifies that the production-of-goods clause remains the route for coverage of some food-service workers, but narrows coverage for many transportation-related support roles.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued for a broader test, saying the cook’s role was necessary to railroad operations and should count as part of interstate commerce; three Justices joined that view.