1,000,000 + Attorneys and Legal Staff - Legal employers hire more people on LawCrossing than any other site.
Embezzlement by Georgia Lawyer of Own Firm Leads to Lawsuit
Embezzlement by Georgia Lawyer of Own Firm Leads to Lawsuit
Ninth Circuit Says FedEx Drivers are Employees, Not Independent Contractors
Ninth Circuit Says FedEx Drivers are Employees, Not Independent Contra...
Cell Phones, Tablets Will Not be Admissible in Aaron Hernandez’s Murder Trial
Cell Phones, Tablets Will Not be Admissible in Aaron Hernandez’s...
Former Cyber Security Head of Health and Human Services Convicted of Child Porn Enterprise
Former Cyber Security Head of Health and Human Services Convicted of C...
Your profile matches an open legal position. Apply now!
Job Listings

Supreme Court Says Time Spent on Changing Into Protective Gear Need Not Be Compensated

In a victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the phrase “changing clothes” used in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act which included the time spent on changing into and out of the protective gear need not be compensated, if so agreed by the parties to a collective bargaining agreement.

In the instant case, the employees sought back pay for the time spent on “putting on” and “taking off” the protective gear that they contended could not be termed as “clothes.” Such gear included a flame-retardant jacket, pair of pants, hood, hardhat, a “snood,” wristlets, work gloves, leggings, metatarsal boots, safety glasses, earplugs and a respirator.

The employer had admitted that under ordinary circumstances the time spent on donning and taking off the protective gear was compensable under the FLSA’s “continuous workday rule.” But the plaintiffs’ claims were non compensable because it was agreed so by a collective bargaining agreement. And under Section 230(o), parties to the agreement can choose to designate non-compensable the “time spent in changing clothes … at the beginning or end of each workday.”

What

 job title, keywords

Where

 city, state, zip



Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!


The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court with the plaintiffs claiming that the definition of “clothes” did not cover the type of protective gear that they had to wear and take off each day, and that there was a clear distinction between articles worn to protect the body, and articles worn for decency or comfort.

However, the court rejected the arguments made by the employees and held that the two concepts are “not incompatible, and are often synonymous.” The Court also stressed that if the meaning of the word “clothes” was restricted in such a fashion then the Section 203(o) would reach “near nothingness,” since protective gear “is the only clothing that is integral and indispensable to the work of factory workers, butchers, longshoremen, and a host of other occupations.”

The Court explained that the “statutory context makes clear that the ‘clothes’ referred to are items that are integral to job performance; the donning and doffing of other items would create no claim to compensation under the Act, and hence no need for the § 203(o) exception.”

Supreme Court Says Time Spent on Changing Into Protective Gear Need Not Be Compensated by

Tagged: , , , ,

Posted by on February 3, 2014. Filed under Legal News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

 

 

Job of the Day
Real Estate Associate
USA-TX-Dallas

Our client is a north Dallas law firm who seeks a Real Estate Development Associate.  The ideal candidate will have 2-4 years law firm experience concentrated in representing real estate develope...