Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp.
2014 U.S. LEXIS 799, 187 L. Ed. 2d 729, 571 U.S. 220 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the phrase 'changing clothes' includes altering one's dress by donning or doffing items designed to cover the body and commonly regarded as articles of dress. If the vast majority of an employee's time spent on preliminary or postliminary activities is on such 'clothes,' the entire period can be made noncompensable by a collective bargaining agreement, even if some time is spent on non-clothes items.
Facts:
- United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) required employees at its steelmaking facilities to wear various pieces of protective gear due to workplace hazards.
- The required gear included a flame-retardant jacket, pants, and hood; a hardhat; work gloves; leggings; metatarsal boots; safety glasses; and earplugs.
- Clifton Sandifer and other employees spent time at the beginning and end of each workday putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) this required gear.
- A collective bargaining agreement between U.S. Steel and the employees' union stipulated that the time spent on these donning and doffing activities was not compensable.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifton Sandifer and other employees filed a putative collective action against United States Steel Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, seeking backpay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- The District Court granted summary judgment to U.S. Steel, holding that the time spent donning and doffing protective gear constituted 'changing clothes' under § 203(o) and was therefore noncompensable under the collective bargaining agreement.
- Sandifer and the other employees (appellants) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of U.S. Steel (appellee).
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit's decision.
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 employees spend donning and doffing employer-required protective gear constitute 'time spent in changing clothes' under § 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, thereby allowing a collective bargaining agreement to make that time noncompensable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. The time spent donning and doffing the protective gear at issue constitutes 'changing clothes' under § 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and can therefore be made noncompensable through a collective bargaining agreement. The court determined that 'clothes,' in the context of the statute, refers to items designed and used to cover the body and commonly regarded as articles of dress. This definition includes most of the protective gear like jackets, pants, and hardhats, but excludes items like safety glasses and earplugs. The Court further held that 'changing' is not limited to substituting garments but also includes altering one's dress by adding or removing layers. To avoid judicial micromanagement of time, the Court established a 'vast majority' test: if the vast preponderance of the time spent on these activities is devoted to donning and doffing 'clothes,' the entire period is covered by § 203(o), and the time spent on non-clothes items does not need to be separated and compensated.
Analysis:
This decision provides the authoritative Supreme Court definition for 'changing clothes' under the FLSA, resolving a circuit split and giving significant weight to the power of collective bargaining. By rejecting a narrow definition that would exclude most protective gear, the Court prevented § 203(o) from becoming largely irrelevant in many industrial settings. The 'vast majority' test creates a practical and administrable standard for lower courts, steering them away from becoming 'time-study professionals' who must parse seconds spent on individual items. This ruling strengthens the ability of employers and unions to negotiate compensation terms for pre- and post-shift activities involving safety gear.
