On November 4, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case concerning the meaning of the phrase "changing clothes" under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That section provides that employees are not compensated for "any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday" if an applicable collective bargaining agreement excludes such time from working time. The case is Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.
The plaintiffs are Clifton Sandifer and other current and former employees of U.S. Steel's Gary, Indiana plant. They alleged that the protective pants, jackets, wristlets, leggings, hoods, and boots that U.S. Steel requires them to wear at the plant are not "clothes" within the meaning of section 203(o), and that they should be permitted to maintain an FLSA collective action to recover compensation for the time spent donning and doffing those items. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, concluding that the items at issue constitute "clothes" under Section 203(o) and that U.S. Steel therefore need not compensate plaintiffs for any time spent donning and doffing them.
During the Supreme Court oral argument, the plaintiffs sought to define "clothes" narrowly to exclude items that are worn to protect against identified workplace hazards and that are designed to protect against such hazards. U.S. Steel, in contrast, sought to define "clothes" broadly to include the entire "work outfit" that an employee wears to perform his or her job. Appearing as amicus curiae, the United States took a middle position, attempting to draw a distinction between clothing and equipment.
The justices seemed to struggle to find a workable definition of "changing clothes" that could be applied not only to the Sandifer case, but to the full gamut of Section 203(o) cases. For example, Justice Alito suggested that all clothing serves some sort of protective function; Justice Kagan suggested that an item's function is not relevant to whether it constitutes clothing; Justice Scalia suggested that items like eyeglasses and wristwatches are not clothes; and Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the issue should be left to the collective bargaining process.
A decision is expected later this year or early in 2014. When the case is decided, we will report on it here.
Originally published on the Employer's Law Blog
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
