ARTICLE
7 April 2017

Statutory Interpretation: The "Clarifying Virtues" Of The Oxford Comma In The First Circuit

AP
Arnold & Porter

Contributor

Arnold & Porter is a firm of more than 1,000 lawyers, providing sophisticated litigation and transactional capabilities, renowned regulatory experience and market-leading multidisciplinary practices in the life sciences and financial services industries. Our global reach, experience and deep knowledge allow us to work across geographic, cultural, technological and ideological borders.
"For want of a comma, we have this case." So begins the First Circuit's recent opinion in O'Connor, et. al., v. Oakhurst Dairy, in which the court issued a victory to lovers of the Oxford comma.
United States Employment and HR

"For want of a comma, we have this case." So begins the First Circuit's recent opinion in O'Connor, et. al., v. Oakhurst Dairy, in which the court issued a victory to lovers of the Oxford comma.

Plaintiffs, delivery drivers for the defendant Maine dairy company, alleged they were entitled to, and wrongfully denied, overtime pay under Maine's overtime statute, 26 M.R.S.A. § 664(3). In response, the dairy company argued that the drivers were not covered by the overtime statute. Exemption F to the overtime statute states that overtime pay is not required for "the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of...perishable foods." (26 M.R.S.A. § 664(3)(F)). The last phrase, "packing for shipment or distribution," and its conspicuous lack of an Oxford comma, determined the outcome of the case.

The dairy company read this phrase to describe two separate activities: (1) packing (of perishable foods) for shipment, and (2) distribution (of perishable foods). According to the dairy company, its drivers were distributing dairy products, and thus were not protected by the overtime statute. The drivers read the phrase to describe one activity—packing (perishable foods), either for shipment or distribution, which they did not do. Under the drivers' interpretation, Exception F would not apply, and they would be entitled to the protections and compensation afforded by the overtime statute.

On appeal, the First Circuit sided with the drivers. After lengthy discussion of conjunctions and other grammatical devices, the Court found Exemption F to be ambiguous, "largely due to the fact that no comma precedes the words 'or distribution.'" While the presence of such a comma would have practically assured victory for the dairy farmers "beyond dispute," the comma's absence was equally fatal. Left with an ambiguous provision, the Court adopted the drivers' interpretation, which furthered the "broad remedial purpose of the overtime law." In so doing, the Court highlighted the "clarifying virtues" of the Oxford comma, validated its proponents, and reinvigorated a favorite debate of grammar aficionados everywhere.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More