Skip to main content

Employer Cannot Use Paid Meal Breaks to Offset Compensation Owed to Employees for Donning and Doffing


Smiley v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. - Third Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Employees at an E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. ("DuPont") manufacturing plant worked twelve hour shifts.  These employees were required to be onsite before and after their designated shift in order to "don and doff" uniforms and protective gear necessary to do their job.  DuPont also required these employees to participate in "shift relief" in which outgoing employees shared information on the status of work with incoming shift employees.  Approximately 30 to 60 minutes per workday were spent donning, doffing, and providing shift relief.  

Of note, DuPont chose to compensate employees for meal breaks during the twelve hour shifts.  In doing so, DuPont included compensation for meal breaks when it calculated employees' regular rate for overtime purposes, and that compensation was subsequently included on the pay stubs of employees as part of their total hours worked.

Bobbi-Jo Smiley, Amber Blow, and Kelsey Turner ("Appellants") filed a putative collective action and class action against DuPont, claimed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collections Law ("WPCL"), and sought overtime compensation for time spent donning, doffing, and providing shift relief.  DuPont argued that it could offset the compensation it paid to employees for meal breaks (again, which DuPont voluntarily chose to pay and which the FLSA did not require) against such required overtime.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DuPont on the grounds that the FLSA allowed DuPont to use paid non-work time to offset the required overtime.  Appellants subsequently appealed.

Holding:  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis of the case with a look to the FLSA and a recognition that the Act requires employers to pay their employees for all hours worked.  With that being said, the FLSA does carve our permissible offsets that allows an employer to use certain compensation already given to an employee as credit against its overtime liability owed to that employee.  However, when the Court looked at the types of offsets permitted by the Act, the Court could not reconcile that with the arguments made by DuPont as to why it should be allowed to offset time paid for meal breaks against any required overtime compensation.  

In particular, the Court held that the policy rationals of the FLSA do not permit crediting compensation used in calculating an employee's regular rate of pay because it would allow employers to "double count" the compensation.  The Department of Labor had submitted a brief which the Court found useful, including recognizing that there was no authority to support DuPont's proposition that compensation already paid for hours of work can be used as an offset and subsequently counted a second time as "statutorily required compensation" for other hours of work.  Instead, the FLSA only provides an offset of an employer's overtime liability using other compensation that is excluded from the regular rate and paid to an employee at a premium rate.

Judgment:  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case and held that an employer cannot use paid meal breaks to offset compensation owed to employees for donning and doffing work related clothes and protective gear.

The Takeaway:  Although I thought this case would deal more directly with the issue of donning and doffing (as several other cases have), I think it does provide a good analysis of the FLSA and how employers cannot use voluntarily paid meal breaks to offset any compensation that might be owed to employees (in this case, for overtime work spent donning, doffing, and providing shift relief).  Some might think that DuPont should have been given "credit" for voluntarily paying its workers for meal breaks and not subsequently "punished" for simply trying to offset this against any wages that would be due for overtime worked.  

I can understand that line of reasoning, and it seemed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals looked at all available statutory options to see if DuPont's "good faith" conduct could be justified.  However, when it came down to it, the language of the FLSA and prior caselaw simply did not support the precedent that an employer can lawfully use voluntarily paid meal breaks to offset compensation owed to employees for time spent donning, doffing, and providing shift relief.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Rendell

Date:  October 7, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/SmileyDupont100716.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