The Boehmer v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company case in 1919 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an employment contract between John Boehmer, a railroad worker, and his employer, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not overtime pay should be calculated based on actual hours worked or according to scheduled shifts. Boehmer argued that he was entitled to additional compensation for time spent working beyond his regular shift hours under the terms of their agreement. However, the company maintained that they were only obligated to pay him for his regularly scheduled shift regardless of any extra time he may have put in. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boehner stating that when an employee is required by necessity and command of his employer to work longer than eight hours per day within six days per week period without receiving overtime payment as stipulated by law constitutes violation against labor rights protected under federal laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Boehmer v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, it was argued that the court erred in its decision to uphold a lower court's ruling which dismissed an employee's claim against his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissenting justices believed that there were significant factual disputes regarding whether or not the plaintiff had been negligent and if this negligence contributed to his injury. They felt these issues should have been decided by a jury rather than summarily dismissed by a judge. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of FELA, arguing that Congress intended for employees to be able to bring claims against their employers even when they may have also been partially at fault for their injuries. Therefore, according to them, dismissing such cases without allowing them go before a jury undermines congressional intent and deprives workers of rights granted under federal law.