Oxford Comma Legal Cases: How a Single Punctuation Mark Cost $5 Million

The Oxford Comma: More Than Just a Tiny Mark

The Oxford comma (also called the serial comma) is the comma placed before the coordinating conjunction (usually "and" or "or") in a list of three or more items. Consider the difference between:

  • "I invited my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty" (which suggests your parents are Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty)
  • "I invited my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty" (which clearly lists three separate people)

This seemingly minor punctuation mark is crucial in legal writing because it eliminates ambiguity. In everyday communication, context often helps us understand meaning even with poor punctuation. But in legal documents, contracts, and statutes—where precise interpretation can determine financial liability, contractual obligations, or even employment rights—the Oxford comma becomes a critical tool for clarity.

When it comes to legal language, a single missing comma can cost millions of dollars. Unlike casual writing where we might overlook punctuation errors, legal documents must withstand judicial scrutiny where every word—and every punctuation mark—matters. For more on why this matters in professional writing, see our guide to why Oxford commas are important.

The $5 Million Comma: How a Missing Punctuation Mark Changed the Law

O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy (2017)

This landmark case demonstrates exactly why the Oxford comma matters in legal contexts.

The Disputed Language

Maine's overtime law included this exemption for certain agricultural workers:

"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."

The Legal Battle

  • Oakhurst Dairy's position: Argued "packing for shipment" and "distribution" were two separate activities. Under this interpretation, delivery drivers who distributed products would be exempt from overtime pay.
  • The drivers' position: Contended "packing for shipment or distribution" was a single activity. Since they performed distribution but not packing, they should be entitled to overtime pay.

The Court's Reasoning

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in favor of the drivers, stating:

"For want of a comma, we have this case."

The court found the statute ambiguous because the absence of the serial comma created uncertainty about whether "distribution" was a separate activity. As Judge David J. Barron famously wrote, the punctuation question wasn't trivial—it was central to determining the drivers' legal rights.

The Outcome

The court found the statute ambiguous and, applying Maine's rule of statutory construction that wage laws should be "liberally construed to further the beneficent purposes for which they were enacted," ruled in favor of the drivers.

The dairy company settled for $5 million in unpaid overtime for approximately 120 drivers. This case became so significant that the Maine legislature amended the statute to clarify the language, replacing commas with semicolons and changing "distribution" to "distributing" to maintain grammatical parallelism.

This case is a prime example of how precision in writing isn't just about style—it's about ensuring your legal documents mean exactly what you intend them to mean.

Other Notable Legal Cases Involving Punctuation

Ohio Condominium Law: The Comma That Controlled Reserve Funding

A similar issue arose in Ohio with a different punctuation mark. The statute in question read:

"Duties and authority of [Condo] association and board... (1) Adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves in an amount adequate to repair and replace major capital items in the normal course of operations without the necessity of special assessments, provided that the amount set aside annually for reserves shall not be less than ten per cent of the budget for that year unless the reserve requirement is waived annually by the unit owners..."

The absence of a comma before "unless" created significant ambiguity about whether annual waiver of reserve funding was permitted. Legal interpretation determined that without the comma, the waiver only applied in the specific circumstance where reserve funding was under 10% of the operating budget—not as a general option.

As attorney Robert L. Guehl noted: "For want of a comma, we have this case." The absence of a single punctuation mark fundamentally changed the financial obligations for condominium associations across Ohio.

Final Thoughts: Punctuation Is Not Optional in Legal Writing

The Maine dairy drivers' case transformed what many considered a trivial punctuation debate into a multi-million dollar legal reality. As the court recognized, "For want of a comma, we have this case."

For legal professionals, this case serves as a powerful reminder: in legal writing, punctuation isn't about style—it's about precision, clarity, and avoiding costly ambiguity. The next time you draft a legal document, consider whether your punctuation choices might leave room for misinterpretation.

This case has become required reading in legal drafting courses nationwide, teaching that precision in punctuation is as important as precision in word choice. As one appellate lawyer explained: "Just because you mean to say something, it doesn't mean that a court will agree with you."

For writers who want to understand the broader implications of punctuation in professional writing, our comprehensive guide to common grammar and style confusions provides essential guidance for avoiding costly mistakes.

Endnotes

  1. O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017). This landmark case established that the absence of an Oxford comma created ambiguity in Maine's overtime law, leading to a $5 million settlement for dairy delivery drivers.
  2. Maine Revised Statutes, Title 26, § 664(3)(F). The disputed statutory language read: "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."
  3. Robert L. Guehl, "The Case of the Missing Comma," Ohio Lawyer, January 1, 2018. Available at: https://www.ohiobar.org/member-tools-benefits/practice-resources/practice-library-search/practice-library/2018-ohio-lawyer/the-case-of-the-missing-comma/
  4. Norman G. Tabler Jr., "The $5 Million Comma," The Federal Lawyer, October/November 2018. The commentary provides a detailed legal analysis of the Oakhurst Dairy case.
  5. Maine Legislative Drafting Manual, Section 6.8. This manual advised drafters: "When drafting Maine law or rules, don't use a comma between the penultimate and last item of a series," but included a caution: "Be careful if an item in the series is modified."
  6. Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010), § 6.123. The authoritative style guide recommends the use of the serial comma and provides guidance on parallel construction in lists.
  7. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012), 119. The text discusses the literary device of "asyndeton" (omission of conjunctions) as a potential justification for the missing conjunction in the statutory language.
  8. Maine statute 26 M.R.S.A. § 664(3)(F), as amended in 2017. Following the court case, the Maine Legislature revised the statute to use semicolons between listed activities and changed "distribution" to "distributing" to maintain grammatical parallelism.
  9. Ohio Revised Code § 5311.081(A)(1). This statute, which governs condominium reserve funding requirements, demonstrates how punctuation affects legal interpretation in different jurisdictions.
  10. David J. Barron, Circuit Judge, O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017). The opening line of the court opinion: "For want of a comma, we have this case" has become iconic in legal writing circles.
  11. Ken Adams, A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting (2013). Adams observes that "punctuation matters" in legal documents and compares contract language to "software code."
  12. The Guardian, "Oxford comma helps drivers win dispute about overtime pay," March 16, 2017. The article described the case as "an overtime case that will delight language nerds everywhere."
  13. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Order in O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy (Case No. 16-1901, March 2017). The court determined the statute was ambiguous and interpreted the law in favor of workers.
  14. BBC Capital, "How much can a misplaced comma cost you?" (December 2018). The article highlighted the Oakhurst Dairy case as an example of how "the slightest misstep in punctuating a clause in a contract can have massive unintended consequences."
  15. David Webbert, lead attorney for the drivers in O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy. As reported by BBC, Webbert stated that the inclusion of a comma in the clause "would have sunk our ship."