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.

As you'll notice, the statute does not contain a comma before the word "or" and that small distinction (the lack of an "Oxford comma" or "serial comma") forms the basis for this entire dispute.

The company argues that its driver’s are clearly involved in the the “distribution of” its merchandise, which is considered to be a “perishable food” under the statute. Therefore, the company argues, they are exempt from receiving overtime pay. The drivers, on the other hand, argue that the lack of a comma in the statute before “or” requires that the statute should be read to only apply to those employees involved in the “packing” of perishable foods, whether for “distribution” or “shipment.” Therefore, the drivers argue, they are not covered by the exemption and are entitled to receive overtime pay.

A federal district court judge previously ruled in favor of the company after finding that the statute unambiguously intends to include employees involved in just the “distribution” of “perishable goods.”

However, the appellate court found that such a reading of the statute was inappropriate because the lack of a comma led to ambiguity as to the meaning of “packing for shipment or distribution.” Therefore, the appellate court found in favor of the drivers because Maine law requires the court to resolve any ambiguity in statutory interpretation in favor of a more liberal meaning that would extend the coverage of overtime pay to more employees.