Red Meat Friday: The Oxford Comma

There’s a particularly odious type of reprobate who refuses to use the Oxford comma. A subset of the type can claim ignorance as a mitigating factor but, sadly, the majority of the transgressors do so with full knowledge and understanding of their offense.

The rightness of the Oxford comma could hardly be more clear: it prevents ambiguity¹. Here’s an example of a fictitious book dedication from the Wikipedia article on the Oxford comma:

1. To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
2. To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

The first, without the Oxford comma, implies that the author’s parents are Ayn Rand and God. The second makes clear what the author is trying to say. That’s an amusing example—especially if you know anything about Ayn Rand—but failure to respect the Oxford comma has real world consequences as shown in the famous O’Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy case.

The TL;DR of the case was that Oakhurst Dairy lost a $10,000,000 suit from their drivers over whether or not they owed the drivers overtime. Oakhurst relied on a Maine statute that specified overtime was not owed to those engaged in the “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.” Notice the lack of the Oxford comma. The court held that since the drivers were not involved in the packing of goods for “shipment or distribution” they were not exempt and Oakhurst owed them overtime.

It’s pretty clear that the legislators did intend the drivers to be exempt but wrote the legislation sloppily. It turns out that it’s not really their fault because the Maine Legislative Drafting Manual said the Oxford comma should not be used. And so Oakhurst Dairy paid the price for the sins of the Oxford-comma-eschewing legislative guidelines. In any event, this is what happens when you don’t respect the Oxford comma.