Supreme Court Accepts Review in FLSA "Donning/Doffing" Case
On February 21, 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted another FLSA certiorari petition, in the matter of Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. Full Story
Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp
The Meaning of "Clothes" To Be Decided by U.S. Supreme Court
Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act excludes from the definition of hours worked time spent “changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday” if it has been excluded “by the express terms of or by custom or practice under a bona fide collective-bargaining agreement.” Full Story
LXBN TV: As Supreme Court Defines “Clothes,” Biggest Impact Will Be On Judiciary’s Deference to D.O.L.—Arthur Rooney
It’s one of those cases quick to generate a smirk as individuals quickly glance the basic facts: yes, the Supreme Court will indeed rule on the definition of “clothes” in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel. But the bigger issue here is in fact the level of deference given to the Department of Labor as they, through opinions expressed in administrator’s interpretations, have gone back and forth on this issue. Joining me to explain the background of the case and its impact is Arthur Rooney of Seyfarth Shaw and The Wage & Hour Litigation Blog. Full Story
Monday Morning Regulatory Review – 2/25/13
Litigation over President Obama’s recess appointments took several additional steps last week and few significant rules were published. Full Story
.jpg)
Supreme Court to Consider Meaning of "Changing Clothes" Amid Changing DOL Interpretations
On February 19, 2013, in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to resolve a circuit split over the meaning “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 203(o). Full Story
Supreme Court to Consider DOL’s (Current) Interpretation of "Clothes" Under the FLSA
Are work clothes “clothes” under the FLSA? And how much weight should be given to the Department of Labor’s opinion on this issue, especially when that opinion has changed more than once? Full Story
Employer Prevails Before Seventh Circuit On Donning, Doffing Claims
In another setback for unionized non-exempt FLSA plaintiffs claiming as compensable time spent: 1) changing into work-related gear; and 2) traveling to their site of work from the changing point (typically in a production facility such as a factory or slaughterhouse), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that U.S. Steel was not required to compensate employees at its steel works in Gary, Indiana for such time. Full Story
Court Sends Collective Action to the Showers On Wage Claim for Time Spent Changing Clothes and Blows the Whistle On the “Clock” Starting When Traveling from the Locker Room
In Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. the Seventh Circuit considered claims brought by 800 former and current unionized hourly workers at U.S. Steel’s Gary, Indiana steel works facility under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) that they should have been compensated for time spent: (1) putting on clothing-items consisting of flame-retardant pants and jacket, work gloves, boots containing steel or other material to protect the toes and instep, a hard hat, safety glasses, ear plugs, and a “snood” (a hood covering the top of the head, the chin and the neck); and (2) walking from the locker room and work site. Full Story
