快活视频

 

Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp.

Summarized by:

  • Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
  • Area(s) of Law: Employment Law
  • Date Filed: February 19, 2012
  • Case #: 12-417
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Court Below: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 678 F.3d 590 (2012)

Whether donning and doffing safety clothing falls within the meaning of 鈥渃hanging clothes鈥 in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Approximately eight hundred current and former employees brought action against their employer (Respondent) asserting that it failed to correctly compensate them under the Fair Labor Standards Act Act (鈥淔LSA鈥) 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.

Respondent鈥檚 employees are not compensated for donning and doffing safety gear worn on the job. The union employees argue that this time ordinarily should be compensable under the FLSA. However FLSA 搂203(o) provides that where an applicable collective bargaining agreement excludes time spent 鈥渃hanging clothes or washing鈥 from the worker鈥檚 compensable work week, such activities are not part of the worker鈥檚 employed hours.

The District Court held that within the meaning of 搂 203(o) of the FLSA the safety equipment constitutes 鈥渃lothes鈥 and 鈥渃hanging clothes鈥 is not limited to substituting one item for another, but also putting on additional items, and dismissed the Petitioners' claim. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that 鈥渃lothing鈥 in 搂 203(o) includes safety clothes.

Due to the widespread disagreement among the lower courts, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve what 鈥渃hanging clothes鈥 means in 搂 203(o) of FLSA.

Advanced Search


Back to Top