Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part I
The Labor Law Insider - NLRB Remedies: “Draconian” Says the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thryv, Part II
The Labor Law Insider—Dartmouth Men's Basketball Team Unionizes: Air Ball or Nothing But Net?
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 11: Understanding Unions with Patrick Wilson, Maynard Nexsen Attorney (Part 1)
Labor Law Insider—Dartmouth Basketball Team Unionizes: The NLRB Sets a Pick for Unions
The Burr Broadcast: Dartmouth Men's Basketball Team Unionization Efforts Explained
Navigating the Future of Intercollegiate Athletics: Implications of the Dartmouth College Student-Athlete Labor Decision
The Labor Law Insider: What Just Happened, and What's Next? 2023 Labor Law Retrospective, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - What Just Happened, and What’s Next? 2023 Labor Law Retrospective
DE Under 3: FAR Council Issued Final Rule Requiring Unionized Workforces on Large Federal Construction Projects
2023 Labor and Employment Highlights: Key Legal Developments, Trends, and Insights - Employment Law This Week®
The Burr Morning Show: NLRB Updates
The Labor Law Insider: Forget the Election: Union Representation Without the Messy Election is the Next Labor Law Reality, Part II
The Burr Broadcast: NLRB's Stericycle Decision and Its Implications for Employer Handbooks
Employment Law Now VII-139 - An Interview With an Employee-Side Attorney on L&E Issues
Labor Law Insider - Forget the Election: Union Representation Without the Messy Election is the Next Labor Law Reality, Part I
The Labor Law Insider - Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today, Part II
Labor Law Insider – Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today
#WorkforceWednesday: How the NLRB’s Labor-Friendly Actions Are Affecting Union and Non-Union Employers - Employment Law This Week®
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
On January 27, 2014, the United States Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) donning and doffing protections....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
This week the Supreme Court held that time unionized workers spend putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) personal protective gear is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The decision comes on the heels...more
Earlier this week, in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Supreme Court addressed whether unionized workers may be entitled to compensation for time spent putting on and taking off protective gear. The Court found that putting...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