When a Missing Comma Cost Millions: The Famous Case of O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy (2017)

---

How a punctuation dispute over Maine’s labor law led to a $5 million settlement — and became a global lesson in legal drafting.

Language is the backbone of law, and even the smallest punctuation mark can change the meaning of a statute. The U.S. case O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy (2017) became internationally famous for showing how the absence of a single Oxford comma (also called the serial comma) cost a company millions of dollars in unpaid overtime wages. This case is now a classic example in the study of legal drafting and statutory interpretation, emphasizing the need for precision in legal language. It also demonstrates how legal meaning is shaped not just by vocabulary, but by syntax and punctuation — tools often overlooked in statutory analysis.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose in the state of Maine, USA, under its labor laws. The law in question — Maine’s overtime statute — required employers to pay overtime to employees who worked more than 40 hours a week, except for certain categories of work.

The relevant exemption clause read:

“The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:
agricultural produce, meat and fish products, and perishable foods.”

This means employees engaged in these activities were not eligible for overtime pay.

However, there was a missing comma between “packing for shipment” and “or distribution.” That absence created a crucial ambiguity. This ambiguity raised a fundamental interpretive question:

Was “distribution” a standalone exempt activity, or merely part of the packing process?

The Core Dispute

Drivers who worked for Oakhurst Dairy, a Maine-based company, delivered perishable dairy products. These truck drivers did not pack the products; they only distributed them. The company argued that the drivers were exempt from overtime pay because the law included “distribution” in the list of exempted activities.

The drivers, on the other hand, argued that the exemption only applied to those who “pack for shipment or distribution,” not to those who simply distribute. In other words, they claimed the law exempted packing for shipment or packing for distribution, but not the act of distribution itself.

Because of the missing comma, the phrase could be read in two different ways:

1. Company’s interpretation (broad exemption):
   • “Packing for shipment, or distribution” — meaning both packers and distributors are exempt.
2. Drivers’ interpretation (narrow exemption):
   • “Packing for shipment or distribution” — meaning only those involved in packing are exempt, not drivers who distribute.

This grammatical ambiguity became the foundation of the case. The drivers’ reading aligned with the principle of ejusdem generis, where general terms following specific ones are interpreted in the same category — reinforcing their claim that “distribution” was not independently exempt.

Court Proceedings

The case, O’Connor et al. v. Oakhurst Dairy, was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court had to decide how to interpret the Maine labor law:

• Should the exemption apply to drivers who only distributed goods?
• Or only to those who actually packed goods for shipment or distribution?

The court examined the statutory language, legislative intent, and grammatical structure of the provision. Importantly, the court noted that Maine’s style guide for drafting laws discouraged the use of the Oxford comma. This rule made legal drafting even more complex, as it increased the possibility of such ambiguities. Ironically, the stylistic preference to omit the Oxford comma — intended to streamline legislative language — became the very source of interpretive confusion.

The Judgment

In March 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the drivers. The court held that the law was ambiguous and, in labor law, ambiguities are generally interpreted in favor of employees.

The court stated:

“For want of a comma, we have this case.”

The absence of a comma created enough uncertainty to make it unclear whether “distribution” was meant as a separate exempt activity or part of “packing.” Thus, the court concluded that the drivers were entitled to overtime pay.

As a result, Oakhurst Dairy had to pay around $5 million in overtime wages to its drivers. The case did not hinge on factual disputes, but on how a single punctuation mark shaped the legal meaning of a statutory clause — a rare but instructive scenario in appellate litigation.

Legal and Linguistic Significance

The O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy case is not just about wages; it’s about how punctuation affects legal interpretation. It highlights a few vital lessons:

1. Precision in Legal Drafting:
   Laws must be drafted with clarity and consistency. Even a missing comma can cause years of litigation and financial loss.
2. The Importance of the Oxford Comma:
   The Oxford comma — used before the final “and” or “or” in a list—can eliminate ambiguity. For example:
   • “Packing for shipment, or distribution” (clear separation of two acts).
   • “Packing for shipment or distribution” (unclear whether “distribution” is a separate activity).
3. Doctrine of Strict Construction in Labor Law:
   The court followed the principle that labor laws must be interpreted liberally in favor of workers, since they are usually the weaker party in employment relations. This interpretive approach reflects a broader judicial philosophy — that ambiguity in protective legislation must not disadvantage those it aims to protect.
4. Impact on Legislative Drafting:
   After this case, many lawmakers and drafters began reviewing their drafting conventions, especially concerning punctuation and grammar in statutes.

Reactions and Aftermath

Following the judgment, Maine legislators revised the statute to remove ambiguity. Instead of relying on commas, they restructured the sentence using bullet points to clearly list each exempt category. This approach made the meaning explicit and avoided grammatical confusion altogether. It also illustrated how visual formatting — such as bullet points or numbered lists — can enhance clarity more reliably than relying on punctuation alone.

The case also became widely cited in legal writing and language interpretation courses across the world. It serves as a reminder that legal drafting is not just about law — it’s about the art of language.

Conclusion

The case of O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy (2017) is a timeless lesson in the power of punctuation. It demonstrates how a simple comma — or its absence — can determine the outcome of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. For legal professionals, lawmakers, and students alike, it underscores the importance of clarity, precision, and attention to detail in drafting and interpreting laws.

In law, every word — and every comma — matters. The legacy of O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy continues to influence how lawyers, judges, and legislators think about language — not as ornamentation, but as the architecture of justice.

---

References

1. O’Connor et al. v. Oakhurst Dairy et al., 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017).
2. Maine Revised Statutes, Title 26, §664(3) (Overtime Exemptions).
3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Opinion (2017).
4. The Guardian, “Oxford comma helps drivers win dispute about overtime pay,” March 2017.
5. Harvard Law Review Blog, “Grammar Lessons from O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy,” 2018.

---

#OConnorvOakhurstDairy #OxfordCommaCase #LegalDrafting #StatutoryInterpretation #LaborLaw #LegalLanguage #CommaInLaw #LegalWriting #CourtCases #EmploymentLaw #DrGaneshVisavale