As Supreme Court Defines “Clothes,” Biggest Impact Will Be on Judiciary’s Deference to DOL
On August 15, 2024, Massachusetts Governor, Maura Healy, signed legislation that will regulate and ultimately end the sale of protective gear for firefighters that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)....more
I love working time cases. And we got a real winner lately. The Third Circuit has recently ruled that clothes-changing time for oil rig workers was compensable. In so doing, the appellate court laid out its framework for...more
Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp., 78 F.4th 587 (3d Cir. 2023) - A group of oil rig hands sued their employer, Precision Drilling Corp. (PDC), alleging they were entitled to wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for...more
On August 16, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified the test courts should use when determining whether workplace uniforms or safety gear are integral and indispensable to an employee's principal...more
On March 17, 2020, pursuant to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act, HHS Secretary Alex M. Azar II issued a declaration (Declaration)...more
Earlier this week, we discussed current trends and future implications of COVID-19 on businesses operating in the products arena, noting the most direct impact so far on the pharmaceutical and medical device spaces....more
While we hope that COVID-19 (coronavirus) will be contained to a very few isolated cases in the United States, health care employers should be prepared to deal with a number of employment law issues unique to being on the...more
OSHA regulations require an employer to conduct a hazard assessment to determine if hazards are present, or likely to be present, that necessitate the use of Personal Protection Equipment (“PPE”). 29 CFR § 1910.132(d)(1). It...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA “strongly supports” EPA’s proposed updates to its existing regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The proposed changes seek to...more
A recent U.S. Supreme Court case holding that representative evidence can be used in class/collective actions to the same extent that it could be used in an individual action may not have the broad application hoped for by...more
Like most employers, Hormel Foods paid its employees from the time they punched-in to the time they punched-out. Prior to punching the clock, manufacturing employees were required to dress in a clean white jumpsuit, boots,...more
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently helped clarify the circumstances under which pre- and post-shift donning and doffing constitutes compensable work under Wisconsin’s minimum wage and overtime laws. The decision, which...more
The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero, 456 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. 2015) has re-opened the national debate about whether courts should admit evidence of seat belt non-usage in lawsuits arising from...more
The Supreme Court recently granted Tyson Foods’ petition for certiorari which presents to the Court two important class action issues: (1) Whether differences among individual class members may be ignored and a class...more
Last week, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to Tyson Foods in an appeal of a class and collective action filed under the FLSA and a similar Iowa state law. Hourly workers at Tyson’s Storm Lake, Iowa pork...more
Yesterday, the CDC issued revised guidance ("Guidance") detailing personal protective equipment (PPE) standards, including donning and doffing PPE, for all healthcare workers entering the room of a patient hospitalized with...more
The use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is evolving in ways that could not have been foreseen, as a collective brain trust of medical experts and front line workers push for modifications of PPE guidelines to wall off...more
Reflective Apparel Factory, Inc. (“Reflective”), a Georgia corporation headquartered in Marietta, seeks a declaratory judgment against Carolina Safety Acquisition, LLC (“Carolina”), a Delaware limited liability company...more
We last wrote about Mitchell v. JCG Industries, No. 13-2115 (7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2014), in mid-March, when one judge on the panel (all suspected Judge Posner) confirmed his “intuition” that plaintiffs in a donning-and-doffing...more
As we wrote in our January Labor Alert, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. interpreted the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 3(o) to apply to putting on and taking off a variety...more
In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FLSA does not require unionized employers to compensate employees for time spent putting on and taking off certain protective clothing if they have a...more
On January 27, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the term “changing clothes” found in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act), specifically at 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). This case is significant for...more
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (January 27, 2014) should serve as an impetus for all employers to review their pay practices with respect to paying employees for...more
On January 27, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that time spent donning and doffing required protective gear was not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the terms of a collective bargaining...more
In Sandifer et al. v. United States Steel Corp., a unanimous Supreme Court clarified the meaning of "changing clothes" found in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA" or "Act"), holding that "changing clothes"...more