<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp.,<\/i> No. 12-417, __ S. Ct. __ (2014)<\/p>\n
On January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered another unfavorable decision for employees.\u00a0 <\/span>The employees of this case filed a collective action under the Fair Labors Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) seeking backpay for the time spent \u201cdonning and doffing\u201d pieces of protective gear that they claim was required because of hazards at the steel plant.<\/p>\n Generally, time spent \u201cdonning and doffing\u201d protective gear would be compensable under the FLSA, however, in this case, there was a provision in the collective bargaining agreement which made this time noncompensable.\u00a0 <\/span>Section 203(o) of the FLSA allows parties to collectively bargain over whether \u201ctime spent in changing clothes\u2026.at the beginning or end of each workday\u201d would be compensable.\u00a0 <\/span>The employees specifically pointed to 12 items of protective gear that they say did not qualify as \u201cclothes\u201d:\u00a0 <\/span>\u201ca flame-retardant jacket, pair of pants, and hood; a hardhat; a \u2018snood\u2019; \u2018wristlets\u2019; work gloves; leggings; \u2018metatarsal\u2019 boots; safety glasses; earplugs; and a respirator.\u201d<\/p>\n After determining the definitions of \u201cclothes\u201d and \u201cchanging\u201d as intended to be used in section 203(o) of the FLSA, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that all of the protective gear, except for the safety glasses, earplugs and respirators, qualified as \u201cclothes.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Next, the Supreme Court reasoned that the most appropriate question in resolving this matter was \u201cwhether the period at issue can, on the whole<\/i>, be fairly characterized as \u2018time spent in changing clothes or washing.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cIf an employee devotes the vast majority of the time in question to putting on and off equipment or other non-clothes items (perhaps a diver\u2019s suit and tank) the entire period would not qualify as \u2018time spent in changing clothes\u2019 under [the FLSA], even if some clothes items were donned and doffed as well.\u00a0 <\/span>But if the vast majority of the time is spent in donning and doffing \u2018clothes\u2019\u2026the entire period qualifies, and the time spent putting on and off other items need not be subtracted.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>In this case, the Supreme Court held that the time spent donning and doffing the safety glasses, earplugs, and respirators was \u201cminimal\u201d compared to time spent donning and doffing the other nine items that fit the definition of \u201cclothes.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Therefore, the Supreme Court held that this time period was noncompensable.<\/p>\n This case clarifies \u201cdonning and doffing\u201d in cases where there is a collective bargaining agreement.\u00a0 <\/span>If the collective bargaining agreement did not mention \u201cdonning and doffing\u201d or if there was no collective bargaining agreement, the employees would have been compensated for this time period.\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cAny activity that is integral and indispensable to a principal activity is itself a principal activity under [the FLSA].\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Here, the protective gear was a mandatory part of the employees\u2019 job and therefore would be compensated.<\/p>\n There are many jobs that require uniforms and\/or protective equipment that must be outfitted before your shift and removed after your shift at the job site.\u00a0 <\/span>Contact the employment lawyers at Fitapelli & Schaffer, (212) 300-0375, to schedule a free consultation to discuss your rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417, __ S. Ct. __ (2014)
\nOn January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered another unfavorable decision for employees.\u00a0 The employees of this case filed a collective action under the Fair Labors Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) seeking backpay for the time spent \u201cdonning and doffing\u201d pieces of protective gear that they claim was required because of hazards at the steel plant.
\nGenerally, time spent \u201cdonning and doffing\u201d protective …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[23,1,22,21,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action","category-employment-law","category-flsa-2","category-overtime-2","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\n