Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
- Decided
- December 4, 1944
- Docket
- 12
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,567 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Princeton Place v. N.M. Hum. Servs. Dep't
What later courts said
- holding that an agency's interpretation may merit some deference in a field of its specialized expertise — (untitled) (2004)
- holding that an agency’s informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference to the extent it has the “power to persuade” — Schouest v. Medtronic, Inc. (2014)
- holding that an agency’s interpretation may merit some deference in a field of its specialized expertise — Oregon v. Ashcroft (2004)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court.
Seven employees of the Swift and Company packing plant at Fort Worth, Texas, brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees, totalling approximately $77,000. The District Court rendered judgment denying this claim wholly, 53 F. Supp. 1020, and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 136 F. 2d 112.
It is not denied that the daytime employment of these persons was working time within the Act. Two were engaged in general fire-hall duties and maintenance of firefighting equipment of the Swift plant. The others operated elevators or acted as relief men in fire duties. They worked from 7:00 a. m. to 3:30 p. m., with a half-hour lunch period, five days a week. They were paid weekly salaries.
Cite this
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.