Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo

Background

Petitioners were a U.S. contractor hired to build public works in Iraq and Iran and the respondent was an American cook employed on those projects who often worked more than eight hours a day. The cook sued in New York seeking one-and-one-half times pay for overtime under the federal Eight Hour Law and its 1940 amendment, which generally limits workdays to eight hours and requires overtime pay for excess hours.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Congress intended the Eight Hour Law to apply to contracts carried out in foreign countries where the United States has no direct legislative control. The majority said Congress has the power to reach foreign activity but found no clear intention to do so here. The Court relied on the usual rule that statutes are presumed to be domestic unless Congress clearly says otherwise, the Act’s domestic legislative history, and administrative practice and opinions from executive departments that supported a limited geographic scope.

Real world impact

As a practical result, the Court reversed the New York ruling and held the Eight Hour Law does not apply to these off‑continent construction contracts; the opinion leaves contractors and U.S. employees on such foreign projects without overtime protection under this statute. The Court expressly declined to decide whether the statute ever creates a private right for an employee to sue an employer for overtime pay.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Frankfurter (joined by Justice Jackson) concurred but explained he would have dissented if bound by a recent precedent that extended a different labor law abroad; he emphasized executive-branch concerns and administrative difficulties in applying U.S. labor rules overseas.