Rodney Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp
Not yet reported; 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21325 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2023) (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, time spent changing into and out of employer-mandated protective gear is compensable work if the activity is integral and indispensable to the employee's principal activities, evaluated by a multi-factor test considering the location of changing, regulatory requirements, and the type of gear.
Facts:
- Precision Drilling Corporation employs rig hands for oil and gas drilling operations.
- Rig hands are required by Precision Drilling to wear specific protective gear, including flame-retardant coveralls, steel-toed boots, hard hats, safety glasses, gloves, and earplugs.
- This protective gear is necessary due to workplace risks such as fire, crushed toes, flying debris, electric shock, and chemical exposure inherent to oil and gas drilling.
- Rodney Tyger and Shawn Wadsworth, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated rig hands, seek compensation for the time they spend changing into and out of this protective gear.
- Tyger and Wadsworth also seek compensation for time spent walking from changing houses to safety-meeting locations, a claim acknowledged to rise and fall with the changing-gear claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Rodney Tyger and Shawn Wadsworth, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against Precision Drilling Corporation and related entities in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Precision Drilling Corporation, concluding that the risks involved were "ordinary, hypothetical, or isolated" and the gear's protection "incomplete," and therefore the gear was neither integral nor indispensable under the Second Circuit's test.
- Rodney Tyger and Shawn Wadsworth appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the time oil-rig workers spend changing into and out of employer-mandated protective gear, and walking to safety meetings, constitute compensable work under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as interpreted by the Portal-to-Portal Act's 'integral and indispensable' standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Bibas, Circuit Judge
Yes, the time oil-rig workers spend changing into and out of employer-mandated protective gear, and walking to safety meetings, can constitute compensable work if it is integral and indispensable to their principal activities, and the District Court applied an incorrect legal test. The Court explained that under the FLSA and Portal-to-Portal Act, an activity is compensable if it is both "integral" and "indispensable" to the employee's principal activity. It clarified that "integral" means "intrinsic" to the productive work, guided by three factors: (1) the location where workers change (especially if required onsite by the employer, law, or nature of work, or by industry custom, without a meaningful option to change at home); (2) regulations concerning changing clothes or gear; and (3) the type of gear, noting that specialized or even general safety gear mandated due to workplace hazards can be integral, rejecting the notion that gear must be "unique" or guard against "extraordinary" risks. An activity is "indispensable" if it is reasonably necessary for an employee to perform their principal activities safely and effectively, even if not strictly necessary. The Third Circuit rejected the Second Circuit's "transcend ordinary risks" test as too narrow and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, finding it erred in focusing only on specialized risks. It emphasized that factual disputes remain regarding these new factors and whether the time spent is de minimis, thus summary judgment was improper.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance for the Third Circuit on determining what constitutes compensable "integral and indispensable" activities under the FLSA and Portal-to-Portal Act, specifically for donning and doffing protective gear. By establishing a multi-factor test and rejecting the Second Circuit's "extraordinary risks" standard, the decision broadens the scope of activities that may be considered compensable, potentially leading to increased employer liability for preparatory and concluding tasks in various industries. Future cases will likely focus on the factual application of the location, regulations, and type-of-gear factors, as well as the de minimis doctrine, requiring trial courts to conduct more fact-intensive inquiries rather than relying on bright-line rules.
