Advertisement

May 24, 2013

Seventh Circuit Sides with U.S. Steel in Latest Donning and Doffing Decision

The Seventh Circuit in Sandifer v. U.S Steel has provided union employers a useful tool to avoid potential Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “Act”) liability.

Sandifer arose out of a “collective action” brought under the FLSA by 800 former and current unionized hourly workers at U.S. Steel’s steel works in Gary, Ind. The plaintiffs argued that U.S. Steel violated the FLSA when it failed to compensate them for time spent donning and doffing work clothes in a locker room at the plant. The work clothes at issue consisted of flame-retardant pants and jackets, work gloves, metatarsal boots, hard hats, safety glasses, ear plugs, and “snoods” (a hood that covers the top of the head, the chin, and the neck).

Plaintiffs further alleged they were entitled to compensation for time spent walking between the locker room and their workstations. The district court ruled that the FLSA did not require that changing time be compensated, but that the Act may require compensation for time spent walking to and from the locker room and therefore refused to dismiss the suit. Both parties subsequently appealed, and the Seventh Circuit recently issued its opinion in the matter.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Associate

Peter T. Tschanz is an associate in the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where he is a member of the Labor & Employment Law Department. Mr. Tschanz concentrates his practice in representing management interests in both employment litigation and traditional labor matters.

317-231-6452

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.