Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Long Live Grammar Nerds

By Traci Martinez & Jill Kirila on March 20, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A federal appeals court ruling in a case coming out of Maine involving overtime pay and dairy delivery drivers didn’t come down to trucks, milk, or money. Instead, it revolved around one of the biggest debates in the “grammar nerd” world – the “Oxford comma.” Do you remember the Oxford comma from your grammar school days?  It is used before the words “and” or “or” in a list of three or more things.  Also known as the serial comma, its advocates say it clarifies sentences in which things are listed.  Although not all writers or publishers use it, it can make the meaning of a sentence clearer.  Nonetheless, the debate over its use is usually pretty inconsequential.  So how did it play center stage in a recent class action lawsuit by dairy truck drivers in Maine?

Maine’s wage payment laws say employees engaged in the following activities are not eligible to receive overtime pay: “The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods.” The drivers argued that the lack of a comma between “shipment” and “or distribution” meant the legislation applied only to the single activity of “packing,” rather than to “packing” and “distribution” as two separate activities.  And because the drivers distribute the goods, but do not pack them, they argued they were therefore eligible for several years of unpaid overtime pay.

On March 13, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, finding the language to be grammatically ambiguous. Because of that lack of clarity, the drivers won their appeal and were held to be eligible for overtime pay.  The court observed that labor laws, when ambiguous, are designed to benefit the laborers.  “For want of a comma, we have this case,” the court wrote. David Webbert, the lawyer who represents the drivers, declined to take a personal position on the use of the Oxford comma.  But he did state, “if there is any doubt, tear up what you wrote and start over.”

Photo of Traci Martinez Traci Martinez
Read more about Traci MartinezEmail
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Employment Law Worldview
  • Organization:
    Squire Patton Boggs
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo