Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brock v. McGee Bros.
Citations: 111 F.R.D. 484; 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1325; 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21488Docket: No. C-C-86-173-P
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina; August 15, 1986; Federal District Court
The Shiloh True Light Church of Christ filed a "Motion for Joinder and Interpleader," seeking to be added as a defendant in a case brought by the Secretary of Labor against McGee Brothers, a masonry construction company operated by Church members. The Church argues that it needs to join the action to defend its interests, as the lawsuit could negatively impact its vocational training programs, which it asserts are not violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) but rather religiously-oriented training efforts. The Church believes that the existing parties do not adequately represent its interests, and thus, it seeks intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than under Rules 19 or 22, which pertain to mandatory joinder and interpleader respectively. The Court notes that the Church's motion is essentially for intervention as its involvement is necessary for shaping appropriate relief that aligns with its constitutional right to freedom of religion. The Plaintiff alleges that McGee Brothers violated the FLSA, seeking an injunction against the company; however, the Defendant claims that the activities in question were part of a community benefit program rather than commercial operations. The Court must determine if the Church's interests are sufficiently represented by the existing parties before ruling on the motion. To intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), the Church must demonstrate: timely application, a vested interest in the action, potential impairment of that interest without intervention, and inadequate representation by current parties. All criteria must be satisfied. The Church's interest appears to be adequately represented by the Defendant, who shares the same objective of protecting the vocational training program from Fair Labor Standards Act claims. There is no adversity between the Church and the Defendant, as all Defendant's officers are Church members, and they have previously collaborated to oppose the Department of Labor’s investigation. The Defendant actively denies employing program participants, indicating a shared adversarial stance against the Plaintiff. There is no evidence of collusion or nonfeasance by the Defendant, who has engaged the same legal counsel as the Church. Consequently, the Court concludes that the Church's interests are sufficiently represented, denying the motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2). Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) requires either a statutory conditional right or a common question of law or fact with the main action. While no statute supports the Church's claim for permissive intervention, the commonality of interests with the Defendant meets the second requirement. However, the Court expresses doubt that Rule 24(b) was intended for applicants merely seeking to assist existing defenses. Ultimately, the Court decides against granting permissive intervention, citing the potential for increased costs and delays, suggesting instead that the Church could file an amicus curiae brief. Therefore, the Church's motion to intervene as a defendant is denied.