Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Businesses Win Key Victory Before U.S. Supreme Court
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: February 6, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
U.S. businesses started the October 2013 Supreme Court Term with a key victory for employers. Earlier this month, the justices unanimously ruled that U.S. Steel Corp. did not have to pay unionized employees for time spent changing in and out of protective gear under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
Under the Fair labor Standard Act (FLSA), the clock starts running on employee compensation when the worker engages in a “principal activity.” Accordingly, courts have held that workers must be compensated for the time they spend donning and doffing required uniforms and safety gear, unless it is de minimis.
However, the rules are different for unionized employees. Under section 203(o) of the FLSA, an employer is not required to compensate a worker for time spent “changing clothes” (even if it is a principal activity) if that time is expressly excluded from compensable time under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.
The decision in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp. resolves a circuit split regarding how to resolve the two provisions of the FLSA. The justices ultimately concluded that the majority of the protective gear at issue in the case fell under the definition of “clothes” in Section 203(o) and, therefore, the time was not compensable.
“Dictionaries from the era of [Section] 203(o)’s enactment indicate that ‘clothes’ denotes items that are both designed and used to cover the body and are commonly regarded as articles of dress,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. “[N]othing in the text or context of [Section] 203(o) suggests anything other than the ordinary meaning of ‘clothes.’ ”
Scalia further noted that there was “no basis for the proposition that the unmodified term ‘clothes’ somehow omits protective clothing.” With regard to safety gear such as glasses and earplugs, Scalia conceded that they were not typically viewed as clothes.
However, the justices concluded that a decision treating these types of protective items differently would create confusion for courts down the road. It is unlikely that Congress intended to “convert federal judges into time-study professionals,” Scalia wrote.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss how it may impact your company’s wage and hour policies, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Businesses Win Key Victory Before U.S. Supreme Court
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
U.S. businesses started the October 2013 Supreme Court Term with a key victory for employers. Earlier this month, the justices unanimously ruled that U.S. Steel Corp. did not have to pay unionized employees for time spent changing in and out of protective gear under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
Under the Fair labor Standard Act (FLSA), the clock starts running on employee compensation when the worker engages in a “principal activity.” Accordingly, courts have held that workers must be compensated for the time they spend donning and doffing required uniforms and safety gear, unless it is de minimis.
However, the rules are different for unionized employees. Under section 203(o) of the FLSA, an employer is not required to compensate a worker for time spent “changing clothes” (even if it is a principal activity) if that time is expressly excluded from compensable time under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.
The decision in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp. resolves a circuit split regarding how to resolve the two provisions of the FLSA. The justices ultimately concluded that the majority of the protective gear at issue in the case fell under the definition of “clothes” in Section 203(o) and, therefore, the time was not compensable.
“Dictionaries from the era of [Section] 203(o)’s enactment indicate that ‘clothes’ denotes items that are both designed and used to cover the body and are commonly regarded as articles of dress,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. “[N]othing in the text or context of [Section] 203(o) suggests anything other than the ordinary meaning of ‘clothes.’ ”
Scalia further noted that there was “no basis for the proposition that the unmodified term ‘clothes’ somehow omits protective clothing.” With regard to safety gear such as glasses and earplugs, Scalia conceded that they were not typically viewed as clothes.
However, the justices concluded that a decision treating these types of protective items differently would create confusion for courts down the road. It is unlikely that Congress intended to “convert federal judges into time-study professionals,” Scalia wrote.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss how it may impact your company’s wage and hour policies, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.