This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel, an FLSA case in a group of steelworkers at a Gary, Indiana factory claimed they should be paid for time spent changing into flame-retardant suits, steel-toed boots, hardhats and gloves, even though their union agreed to exclude that time from the compensable workday.
Today’s oral argument before the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel yielded largely what was expected. SCOTUS – and the parties – barely touched upon the issue of the Department of Labor (DOL)’s shifting policy on what constitutes changing clothes under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and focused their attention on the substantive issue of the meaning of “changing clothes.”
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that will directly impact employers relying on § 203(o) of the FLSA – a provision that allows employers to exclude time spent by their employees “changing clothes . . . at the beginning or end of each workday” from compensable time pursuant to the terms of or a custom or practice under a collective bargaining agreement – but also holds broader interest for employers as a result of the DOL’s involvement in the issue.
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corporation next Monday, November 4, 2013, asking the question “What constitutes “changing clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.”
Following a term with many employment-related decisions—and with outcomes emphatically pro-employer—the United States Supreme Court will hear the first oral arguments of its 2013-2014 term, which are currently scheduled to begin on October 7, 2013.