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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Senator Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill Requiring Large Corporations To Pay For Federal Assistance Programs

Next week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is set to introduce legislation which would require large employers such as Walmart, Amazon, and McDonald's to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and other federal assistance programs that their employees receive.  Senator Sanders has stated that the goal is to force these large employers to pay their employees a living wage and cut back on the nearly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go toward funding these federal programs every year. As for the specifics, a 100% tax on government benefits received would be imposed on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees.  For instance, if a Walmart employee received $500 in food stamps, Walmart would be taxed $500. To call this proposed legislation groundbreaking would be an understatement.  I would expect that Senator Sanders, an Independent that caucuses with Democrats, is going to face an uphill battle gett...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more