OCONNOR et al v. OAKHURST DAIRY et al

Filing 123

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE-granting 94 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 97 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 112 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CHRISTOPHER O’CONNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OAKHURST DAIRY and DAIRY
FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Docket No. 2:14-cv-192-NT
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
On January 26, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court,
with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on the parties’ cross-motions
for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Recommended
Decision on February 16, 2015. The Defendants responded on March 4, 2016. I have
reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record;
I have heard the parties’ positions through oral argument; I have made a de novo
determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision and I concur
with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge largely1 for the
reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision.

1

The Magistrate Judge states that Director of Bureau of Labor Standards v. Cormier, 527 A.2d
1297, 1300 (Me. 1987) “did not speak to interpreting statutory language ‘in favor of employees’ when
it determined that considering several entities owned by the same individuals operating at the same
location as a single employer ‘effectuates the remedial purposes of that statute.’ ” Recommended
Decision on Cross-Mots. for Partial Summ. J. 11 (ECF No. 112). Although the Law Court did not use
the language “in favor of employees” in its decision, Cormier advises that the wage and hour laws
should be interpreted to further the beneficent purposes for which they are enacted. It is clear to me
that the wage and hour laws were enacted primarily to benefit workers.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby ADOPTED. It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion
for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ motion for
partial summary judgment (ECF No. 97) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States Chief District Judge
Dated this 25th day of March, 2016.

2