For want of a comma $10,000,000 was lost!
Generally, the “burning” issue of the serial (aka “Oxford”) comma is more smoke than fire, just barely pushing out split infinitives as the battle ground for grammar nerds. Bloggers dig it up now and then because a misplaced comma can lead to some amusing mental images, but, except for when the AP Style Guide—the only guide in the US that does not require the serial comma—releases a new edition, it does not rise to press-worthy.
That is until last week. On the morning of March 16th editors everywhere gasped in amazement at how much attention their work suddenly received—and all for the want of one little comma.
Truck drivers for a large Maine dairy won a class-action lawsuit for overtime because of a failure to edit with care. Maine has a law that states overtime rules do not apply to:
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.
For four years the dairy had not paid drivers overtime on the basis that the law included them under the last item on the list. The dairy argued that the list of food-processing jobs exempt from overtime law specified “distribution” and obviously included the drivers. The drivers’ attorneys countered, arguing that their clients were nowhere on the list. The last item on the list, they pointed out, was “packing for shipment or distribution.” Drivers do not pack for shipment or distribution, they actually distribute and deliver milk, and, as the legislature had not included them in the law, the dairy owed them $10,000,000 in overtime pay. A federal appeals court agreed.
While it is obvious in the context of the sentence that the law intends drivers to be exempt, it is not clear in the construction of the sentence that this is the case. One last comma between or and distribution could have saved the dairy an impressive pile of cash. I would modestly suggest that an editor would have been much cheaper!