to be, in practical effect, a part of it, rather than isolated local activity.’ ” Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates, 358 U.S. 207, 212, 79 S.Ct. 260, 3 L.Ed.2d 243 (1959) (internal citations omitted). 7. The former Fifth Circuit “has consistently held that the work of maintenance employees in the office buildings occupied by tenants a substantial number of whom are there engaged wholly or in part in interstate commerce, but who do not there produce goods for interstate commerce, is too remote from the ‘in commerce’ activities of such tenants as to cause such employees to be covered by the Act.” Tobin v. Girard Properties, Inc., 206 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir.1953) (internal citations omitted) ; but see Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 525-26, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638 (1942) (<HOLDING>). The maintenance in this case, where the
holding that the flsa applies to the employees of a us navy contractor because they were considered engaged in interstate commerce holding under flsa recognizing that interpreting the flsa to apply to a handler of any good which has moved interstate would negate the significance of the clause and ignore the intent of congress to create a distinction between certain workers whose activities were covered by the flsa and others whose activities were not holding that maintenance workers in a building that did produce goods for interstate commerce were covered under the flsa holding that individual coverage is established if a substantial part of an employees activities related to goods whose movement in the channels of interstate commerce was established by the test we have described he is covered by the flsa