As Supreme Court Defines “Clothes,” Biggest Impact Will Be on Judiciary’s Deference to DOL
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
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
The More Things Change: U.S. Supreme Court Rules on “Changing Clothes” - Why it matters: In a unanimous decision – save for a single footnote – the U.S. Supreme Court held that the time spent donning and doffing...more
Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., Case No. 12-417 (Jan. 27, 2014), addressing donning and doffing claims in the context of a unionized steel mill. That case not only...more
Based upon a unanimous ruling from the United States Supreme Court and comments from President Barack Obama during his State of the Union address, wage and hour issues are front and center for 2014. Under the wage and hour...more
Employees who spend time putting on and taking off protective clothes, including flame-retardant outerwear, gloves, boot and hardhats, do not have to be paid for that time when it occurs before and after the work day, the...more
Updating a case we discussed last month, in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (January 27, 2014), the United States Supreme Court last week clarified the scope of Section 203(o) of the FLSA concerning which...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that U.S. Steel was not required to compensate its employees for time spent donning and doffing protective gear. The Court reasoned that the collective bargaining agreement between U.S....more
On January 27, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not require an employer to pay workers for time spent donning and doffing protective gear. The...more
On January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417, upholding judgment for the employer under section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act...more
In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel, the U.S. Supreme Court provides its latest take on donning and doffing clothes and other important timekeeping issues under the FLSA. On January 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion...more
In a near unanimous decision on Monday, the United States Supreme Court further clarified the multifaceted and oft-litigated issue of whether "donning and doffing" of some protective gear prior to or following a work shift...more
The Fair Labor Standards Act permits employers and unions to agree to exclude from compensable time, the time spent washing and changing clothes. Does this include agreeing about putting on and taking off “protective...more
Yesterday, in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not require unionized employers to compensate employees for time spent putting on and taking off certain...more
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday released its much-anticipated decision in the case of Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation, and held that Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) — which allows parties to...more
Yesterday (January 27), the Supreme Court issued a ruling that defines the word “clothes” for purposes of a federal statute that allows employers and unions to bargain over pay for time spent by employees “changing clothes or...more
On Monday, January 27, 2014, in unanimously affirming the Seventh Circuit’s judgment in favor of U.S. Steel Corporation in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., the Supreme Court forged a middle ground on the meaning of the...more
On January 27, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit holding that steelworkers’ donning and doffing of certain items of required protective...more
Putting on and taking off protective clothing is considered “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on January 27, 2014. The ruling allows employers and unions to exclude...more
Today's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. paves the way under collective bargaining agreements for the possibility of excluding time spent donning and doffing many kinds of personal...more
On January 27, in a very limited ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer was not required to pay union employees for the time it takes them to put on and take off protective gear when their...more
On January 27, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the time spent by employees donning and doffing (putting on and taking off) certain protective gear is not compensable under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act...more
On Monday, November 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. on the issue of the meaning of the term "clothes" in section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the FLSA,...more