Skip to main content

This Just In: SCOTUS Rules on "Changing Clothes" Wage & Hour Case


As with several cases around the country, I pay particular attention to a certain few and watch as the case develops at the appellate level.  This is one in particular that was handed down by the United States Supreme Court earlier today.


Sandifer v. United States Steel - United States Supreme Court

Facts: Clifton Sandifer filed a collective action against United States Steel on behalf of current and former employees and based the claim on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In essence, Petitioners complained that Respondent owed the employees backpay for time spent changing various pieces of protective gear, necessary for the work that Respondent required be done. Petitioners pointed specifically to twelve of what they stated are the most common kinds of required protective gear: a flame-retardant jacket, pair of pants, and hood; a hardhat; a “snood”; “wristlets”; work gloves; leggings; “metatarsal” boots; safety glasses; earplugs; and a respirator. United States Steel defended the suit on the grounds that the time spent changing was not compensable as the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union stated that this time spent changing was noncompensable. 

The District Court granted United State Steel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the changing of this protective gear constituted a "changing of clothes" as provided by 29 U.S.C. § 203(o).  That subsection allows parties to decide, as part of a collective-bargaining agreement, that “time spent in changing clothes...at the beginning or end of each workday” is noncompensable. The District Court further held that even if the protective gear were not actually "clothes", this time spent changing the protective gear was de minimis and therefore noncompensable.  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 

Holding:  Upon review by the court of the changing of the protective gear complained of by Petitioners, the Supreme Court held that most of these items could be considered "clothes."  As a result, almost everything was properly excluded as noncompensable.  With that being said, the Court did note that some of the protective gear, such as the safety glasses, earplugs, and a respirator, might not be "clothes."  However, that did not give Petitioners sufficient ground to stand on as the Court held that it does not require a minute-by-minute breakdown of how much time is spent on those particular items.  Consequently, the Court held:

"[I]f the vast majority of the time is spent in donning and doffing “clothes” as we have defined that term, the entire period qualifies, and the time spent putting on and off other items need not be subtracted."

Judgment:  The United States Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Respondent.  The changing of the protective gear did not provide Petitioners with sufficient grounds for a valid wage and hour claim under the FLSA.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Justice Scalia 

Date:  January 27, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-417_9okb.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more