Background
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph Darrah, Harry Darrah, : and Kitty Darrah, Individually, : and Joe Darrah, Inc. d/b/a J&K : Salvage and Jason Smith, : : Petitioners : : v. : No. 916 C.D. 2025 : Argued: April 13, 2026 Department of Labor and Industry, : Bureau of Labor Law Compliance, : : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: July 21, 2026 Joseph Darrah, Harry Darrah, and Kitty Darrah, individually, and Joe Darrah, Inc. d/b/a J&K Salvage (Company) and Jason Smith (Smith) (collectively, Petitioners) petition for review from an order of the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (respectively, Secretary and Department), imposing an administrative penalty in the amount of $230,000 jointly and severally on Harry Darrah and Company. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part for further findings.
Background On March 1, 2024, the Department’s Bureau of Labor Law Compliance (Bureau) issued an order to show cause (OSC) against Petitioners. The Bureau alleged that Petitioners violated the Child Labor Act (Act)1 and its regulations by employing four minors2 in a hazardous occupation or establishment. It further alleged that while working at Petitioners’ salvage yard, the minors performed work prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),3 including welding and tasks around a shredder. The Bureau also asserted that Petitioners failed to maintain records associated with the minors’ work permits; failed to provide and/or properly document work breaks after the minors worked for five hours, allowed the minors to work outside of permitted hours, and allowed the minors to work excessive hours on numerous occasions. A hearing was held in August 2024, during which both sides presented witnesses. The hearing examiner issued a proposed report in January of 2025. He credited evidence that Harry Darrah served as president and day-to-day operator of Company, whereas Kitty Darrah had no operational role. Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Report, Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 3, 6.4 He further determined that Smith acted as Company’s office manager and handled payroll and timekeeping but 1 Act of October 24, 2012, P.L. 1209, as amended, 43 P.S. §§40.1-40.14. 2 The minors are identified as B.B., C.C., R.L. and P.S.
The Court’s Holding
conclusions of law, and analysis, which she previously adopted. ______________________________ STACY WALLACE, Judge SW – 2
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusions of law, and analysis, which she previously adopted. ______________________________ STACY WALLACE, Judge SW – 2
- The Bureau alleged that Petitioners violated the Child Labor Act (Act)1 and its regulations by employing four minors2 in a hazardous occupation or establishment.
- It further alleged that while working at Petitioners’ salvage yard, the minors performed work prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),3 including welding and tasks around a shredder.
Why It Matters
Court issues a substantive appellate ruling Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.