On Jan. 27, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that time U.S. Steel Corp. employees spend donning and doffing protective gear is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The ruling affirmed a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Sandifer et al v. U.S. Steel Corp. (No. 12-417).
Sandifer dealt with whether time steel workers spent putting on and taking off required protective gear could be rightly excluded from compensable time under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court opinion focused on the FLSA definitions of changing clothes and did not weigh in on a broader issue that was part of earlier court rulings on how much deference to give to DOL guidance.
FLSA Question
The Sandifer case focused on the definition of clothes under the FLSA. The act requires that employees are paid for all hours worked during a workweek, but in its original language was vague on how to define both “work” and “workweek.” Subsequent court rulings, DOL guidance and amendments to the act attempted to clarify those definitions.
Currently, under the “continuous workday rule,” employees are entitled to compensation for any activities they perform between the commencement of their principal duty and the completion of that duty. However, a provision of the statute allows for a bona fide CBA to define what is, or is not, considered compensable. FLSA Section 203(o) says that employees subject to a CBA are not entitled to pay for time spent donning and doffing clothes if the agreement precludes it.
As the Supreme Court noted in its Sandifer opinion, “Simply put, the statute provides that the compensability of time spend changing clothes or washing is a subject appropriately committed to collective bargaining.”
Background
Unionized U.S. Steel Corp. employees filed a collective action against their employer in federal court for the Northern District of Indiana in 2009 alleging they should have been paid for time spent before and after shifts donning and doffing protective safety items. The list of items they were required to wear included: flame-retardant jackets, pants and hoods; hardhats; snoods; wristlets; work gloves; leggings; steel-toed boots; safety glasses; earplugs; and respirators.
The district court ruled that a CBA between the workers and U.S. Steel excluded time spent donning and doffing clothing from compensable time, and therefore meant that the workers were not entitled to back pay for that time.
The steel workers in Sandifer appealed the decisions and alleged that the safety gear they were required to wear was not clothing, and therefore should not be subject to a CBA excluding it from compensable time. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court decision.
The steel workers petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their claims and the case was granted certiorari in February 2013. Oral arguments were heard in November 2013.
Supreme Court Decision
In the almost unanimous opinion (Justice Sotomayor did not join on one footnote) delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions on the meaning of the phrase “changing clothes.”
The Court said most of the protective gear listed in Sandifer was rightly considered clothes because the items were “both designed and used to cover the body and are commonly regarded as articles of dress.”
Employer Take-away
The Supreme Court decision is widely considered a win for employers, particularly those employers whose workers must wear protective gear. The decision is likely to make it more challenging for unionized workers to make donning and doffing claims in the courts, versus dealing with how the time is treated during negotiations, and reassure those employers with a CBA excluding donning and doffing time from compensable hours worked.
For a full analysis of the case and detailed information about donning and doffing under the FLSA go to Thompson’s HR Compliance Expert(subscriber log-in or free trial required).