Authored by Steve Shardonofsky
Earlier this year, we commented [here] that the Supreme Court agreed to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel rejecting claims by 800 factory workers that they are owed wages for time spent before and after their shifts in a locker room changing into and out of their job-required protective gear.
Authored by Alex Passantino
$35 million.
Even the ability of a public sector employer to use comp time did not prevent the Puerto Rico Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from paying $35 million in back wages and interest to nearly 4,500 current and former employees. See here. In a consent judgment representing one of the largest recoveries in the
Continue Reading W.H.D.?: $35 Million Consent Judgment with Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Co-authored by Arthur Rooney and Jessica Schauer Lieberman
Are work clothes “clothes” under the FLSA? And how much weight should be given to the Department of Labor’s opinion on this issue, especially when that opinion has changed more than once?
Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to answer these questions when it agreed to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Sandifer
Continue Reading It Will Be A “Clothes” Call: Supreme Court to Decide if Work Clothes, Are “Clothes”
Co-authored by Robert S. Whitman and Adam Smiley
Ever since enactment of the Portal-to-Portal Act in 1947, courts have been asked to define what types of work-related activities should and should not be paid — especially those occurring prior to the official start of the workday, or taking place after standard work hours. The courts generally analyze this question by asking
Authored by Arthur Rooney
Under FLSA section 203(o), time spent “changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday” is excluded from compensable time if it is treated as non-work time by a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, to determine whether the exemption applies, courts often have to decide whether certain items, such as protective boots and aprons