Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.

20 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Supreme Court Defines “Changing Clothes” to Include Steelworkers’ Donning and Doffing of Certain Protective Gear

    Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLPJanuary 29, 2014

    On January 27, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit holding that steelworkers’ donning and doffing of certain items of required protective gear constituted “changing clothes” within the meaning of section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417, 2014 WL 273241 (Jan. 27, 2014).1 Because the time spent by the steelworkers donning and doffing their protective gear was excluded from working time under their collective bargaining agreements, the Supreme Court held that the time was not compensable by operation of section 203(o). In 2007, Plaintiff Sandifer filed his collective action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA on behalf of himself and 800 former and current hourly workers at U.S. Steel’s steel works in Gary, Indiana.

  2. When Must an Employer Compensate its Employees for Time Spent Donning and Doffing?

    Cullen and Dykman LLPCynthia A. AugelloMarch 26, 2018

    Hence employees were entitled to compensation.Cases for donning and doffing usually arise where employees are required to put on and take off protective clothing as a prerequisite for doing their job such jobs may include but may not be limited to poultry processing facilities, police uniforms, beef packing facility, or other agricultural industries.It should also be noted that if the time to don and doff is excluded from compensable time pursuant to “the express terms or by custom or practice” or if employers and unions mutually agree that time spent changing clothes is not compensable under a collective bargaining agreement, employees will not be compensated for donning and doffing.In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corporation, employees of U.S. Steel’s Gary, Indiana plant were demanding back-pay for time spent donning and doffing 12 items of protective gear. Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014). This protective gear included a flame-retardant jacket, a pair of pants, a hood, a hardhat, a snood, wristlets, work gloves, leggings, and boots of which the donning and doffing were determined to be compensable.

  3. Seventh Circuit Clarifies Rules for Compensating Tipped Employees Performing Non-tipped Work

    Baker & Hostetler LLPStanley BallJuly 28, 2016

    While the court noted that cleaning burners and woodwork and dusting picture frames was problematic, the time spent was negligible and not enough to recharacterize the majority of time the servers spent on their tipped and related assignments. See Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014).The decision makes it clear that courts, at least in the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, will focus their analysis on whether the non-tipped tasks are incidental to tipped work and whether the non-tipped tasks comprise more than 20 percent of the employee’s time.As well as adding clarification to the question of when the tip-credit can be used, the court examined disclosure issues.

  4. US Supreme Court Affirms Class Certification and Award of Overtime Pay in Tyson Case

    Janette LeveyMarch 31, 2016

    In IBP, Inc v Alvarez 546 US 21 (2005), the court ruled that time donning and doffing required safety gear that is integral and indispensable to principal activities of one’s job is compensable. The Court reached the opposite conclusion in Sandifer v US Steel 134 S. Ct. 870, 187 L. Ed. 2d 729, 21 WH cases 1477, 82 U.S.L.W. 4071 (2014) [2014 BL 20038] . How?

  5. State Overtime Law Does Not Apply To
 Employees Covered By Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Anthony OncidiAugust 24, 2015

    Lab. Code § 510. See also Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (unionized steelworkers’ donning and doffing of protective gear constituted non-compensable time spent “changing clothes” within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act).

  6. Supreme Court rules employees not entitled to pay for time spent in security screenings

    Saul Ewing LLPCatherine WaltersDecember 18, 2014

    Although the workers alleged that in some cases, they spent as much as 25 minutes waiting to undergo the security screenings, the time was not compensable under the FLSA. This case follows on the heels ofSandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014).In Sandifer, the Court held unanimously that time employees spent donning and doffing their protective gear constituted time spent “changing clothes” and was therefore not compensable for purposes of the collective bargaining agreement between U.S. Steel and a union representing certain of its production employees.

  7. March 2014 California Employment Law Notes

    Proskauer Rose LLPTony OncidiMarch 11, 2014

    Lab. Code § 510. See also Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (unionized steelworkers’ donning and doffing of protective gear constituted non-compensable time spent “changing clothes” within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act).Employer Proved Conversion By Employee’s Misuse Of Its Credit CardWelco Elec., Inc. v. Mora, 223 Cal. App. 4th 202 (2014)Welco sued its former quality assurance manager (Nicholas J. Mora) for more than $400,000 based on Mora’s use of Welco’s credit card to transfer specific sums of money to Mora’s bank account.

  8. California Employment Law Notes - March 2014

    Proskauer Rose LLPHarold BrodyMarch 7, 2014

    Lab. Code § 510. See also Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (unionized steelworkers' donning and doffing of protective gear constituted non-compensable time spent "changing clothes" within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act).Employer Proved Conversion By Employee's Misuse Of Its Credit CardWelco Elec., Inc. v. Mora, 223 Cal. App. 4th 202 (2014) Welco sued its former quality assurance manager (Nicholas J. Mora) for more than $400,000 based on Mora's use of Welco's credit card to transfer specific sums of money to Mora's bank account.

  9. Pay for Time Spent Donning and Doffing Protective Gear

    Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLCPeter RichFebruary 26, 2014

    The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (January 27, 2014) should serve as an impetus for all employers to review their pay practices with respect to paying employees for changing into and out of safety related clothes and equipment before the start of and following the conclusion of the workday.BackgroundSandifer involved an effort by a number of current and former bargaining unit employees of the employer’s steelmaking facilities to receive backpay for time spent donning and doffing various pieces of protective gear that the employer required them to wear. There were twelve items of protective gear at issue: a flame-retardant jacket, pair of pants and hood, a hardhat, a snood, wristlets, work gloves, leggings, metatarsal boots, safety glasses, earplugs and a respirator.

  10. Supreme Court Rules Don, Doff Time Not Compensable under Workers' Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Jackson Lewis P.C.Paul DeCampFebruary 6, 2014

    The U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously that employees need not be paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act for their pre-shift and post-shift donning and doffing of clothing required for work where the employer and the workers’ union have agreed in a collective bargaining agreement that such activity would not be compensated. Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (Jan. 27, 2014). This had been the view followed by most circuit courts that had addressed the issue.