Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

While it may sound simple to determine what it means to “change clothes,” the issue is not so simple, particularly when the clothing also protects the employee. Is an apron “clothing”? Is a hardhat? What about mesh gloves? Or arm guards? Steel-toed shoes? Where to draw the line? The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor has shifted its opinion three times. First, in 1997 it took the position that protective safety equipment worn over apparel was not “clothing.” Then, in 2002 it took a 180 degree turn, declaring that “changing clothes” applies to “the putting on and taking off of the protective safety equipment typically worn in the meat packing industry. . . .” In 2010 the Division completed the circle by concluding that changing clothes “does not extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job.”

In Salazar, unionized employees of a turkey processing plant in Colorado wore aprons, plastic sleeves, gloves, hard hats, earplugs, and some even wore mesh gloves, knife holders and arm guards. They sought compensation for their time “donning” or “doffing” these items each day. In affirming summary judgment for the employer, the Tenth Circuit declined to defer to the Wage & Hour Division’s most recent interpretation of the law, or any of its interpretations, because it had reversed course three times. Moreover, the court declared the agency’s current position is “not . . . particularly well-reasoned.”

Instead, the court took a common sense approach, finding that the ordinary meaning of “clothes” encompassed all of the items worn by these plant workers, and rejecting any distinction based on whether the items are “ordinary,” “street clothes,” or worn for safety or protective purposes, as not “particularly coherent or workable.” The court also discarded the approach taken by the Ninth Circuit—the one federal circuit court that has ruled to the contrary—that “generic” protective clothing, such as boots, frocks and hard hats, should be distinguished from “unique” protective clothing, such as mesh gloves or knife holders. The “unique” equipment worn by these turkey plant workers was not viewed as sufficiently cumbersome, heavy or complicated to fall outside of the definition of “clothes.”

With this latest ruling, we now have six federal appellate circuit courts finding that donning and doffing protective equipment is not compensable work time under these circumstances, and one going the other way. But the battle over what constitutes compensable time changing “clothes” no doubt will continue to rage, at least until more cases clearly delineate when employees must be paid for putting on or taking off their protective equipment.

Photo credit: Matt Collingwood

Courtney Gordon, the Plaintiff-Appellant, was hired under this agreement, and resigned after only one year of service. On the day of Gordon’s resignation, the City informed her it was entitled to recover $6,400 (eighty percent of $8,000) in training costs. Accordingly, the City withheld income from Gordon’s final paycheck, but only in partial satisfaction of Gordon’s debt. As a result, Gordon received at least minimum wage income in her final paycheck, but was still accountable to the City for the remaining balance of her training costs.

Gordon then filed a class action lawsuit, seeking damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various California state laws. At issue was whether the City’s paycheck deduction for training cost reimbursement constituted a “kickback” in violation of FLSA regulations (29 C.F.R. § 531.35: “The wage requirements of the Act will not be met where the employee ‘kicks-back’ directly or indirectly to the employer ... the whole or part of the wage delivered to the employee.”). The district court found that because Gordon’s paycheck still exceeded the minimum wage, despite the deduction, the City’s reimbursement demand did not violate the FLSA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Gordon is significant because it marks the latest Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a training cost reimbursement agreement under the FLSA. Following the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Heder v. City of Two Rivers, Wisconsin, 295 F.3d 777, 781-82 (7th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit called the City’s reimbursement agreement “a voluntarily accepted loan, not a kick-back.” Thus, the court explained, the cost of the training was a loan the City made to its officers, repayment of which was forgiven after five years of employment. And as long as the City paid its departing officers at least the statutory minimum wage, it could collect the training costs as any other ordinary creditor could, without violating the FLSA.

This entry was written by Milton Castro.

The employee and Petitioner argued that these issues were important for the Court to resolve because there is a conflict among the circuits and district courts. Most notably, the Ninth Circuit in Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2003), aff’d on other grounds, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), held that that protective items worn in the beef and pork industries are not “clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o), and, therefore, employees are required to be paid for this time, which is in direct conflict with the Fourth Circuit’s opinion.

In opposition to the petition for review to the Supreme Court, the employer and Respondent, Allen Family Foods, Inc., distinguished Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., noting that the meat packing and poultry industries use different protective gear, and that the Petitioner oversimplified the facts in the case. In addition, the employer noted that, after the petition was filed, the U.S. Department of Labor issued an opinion letter stating that the term “clothes” in Section 203(o) does not apply to the protective gear worn by meat packing employees, but distinguished the heavy protective gear worn in meat packing plants from the lighter gear worn in poultry plants. Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2010-2 (June 16, 2010).

The employee also presented the issue of whether the requirement that exemptions from the FLSA are to be narrowly construed also applies to Section 203(o). In response, the employer argued that Section 203(o) is not an exemption, because it does not exempt any employee from the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the Act, and, therefore, ordinary statutory interpretation should apply.

Employers should not read too much into the Court’s refusal to hear this case. It is possible the Court prefers that other circuits weigh in on the issue before accepting review, particularly in light of the Department of Labor’s recent Administrator’s Interpretation.

This entry was written by Steven Kaplan.

The employees principally argued that Section 203(o) was inapplicable because the union did not “affirmatively” bargain away potential compensable donning and doffing time during negotiations and, therefore, the company could not have a “custom or practice under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.” In particular, the employees relied on Kassa v. Kerry, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Minn. 2007), where the court “identified three elements as essential to determine the existence of a ‘custom or practice‘ under § 203 (o): time, knowledge, and acquiescence.” In Kassa, the district court found that the employer’s custom and practice did not meet these requirements because the record only established non-payment by the company for six years. In contrast, in Allen, the company had not compensated its employees for changing time since 1965. Moreover, the court noted that the employees knew that they were not being compensated for that time, and whether they were aware of their legal rights under the FLSA was not a relevant consideration. Consequently, the court affirmed summary judgment.

The court also rejected the employees’ contention that Section 203(o) should be characterized as an “exemption” under the FLSA, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the employer to establish the exemption as an affirmative defense.. The court reasoned that Section 203 “is a list of definitions and subsection (o) addresses how to define and calculate ‘hours worked,’ in contrast to Section 213, which is titled ‘Exemptions.’”

The Fifth Circuit is now in accord with the Third and Eleventh Circuits, which also have concluded that it is not necessary to raise the issue of compensation for donning and doffing time in negotiations. Anderson v. Cagle's, Inc., 488 F.3d 945, 958-59 (11th Cir. 2007); Turner v. City of Philadelphia, 262 F.3d 222, 226 (3rd Cir. 2001). Notably, only the Ninth Circuit has characterized Section 203(o) as an exemption. See Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894, 905 (9th Cir. 2003), aff’d on other grounds, IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005); cf. Anderson, 488 F.3d at 957.

This entry was written by Steven Kaplan.

The employees were required to wear steel-toe shoes, a smock, plastic apron, safety glasses, ear plugs, bump cap, hair net, rubber gloves and sleeves, and arm shields. In addition to donning and doffing these items at the beginning and end of each work day, employees were also required to sanitize their gear by dipping their gloves into a tank, splashing the liquid solutions onto their aprons, and stepping through a footbath before and after working and during extended breaks. The company had a long standing practice of paying its employees for time on the production line only.

In 2002, the union proposed that its members be paid for twelve minutes of donning and doffing time per day. The company rejected the union’s offer and continued to pay its employees for production line work only. In 2007, three production employees filed a putative collective action in which they were joined by approximately 250 current and former production workers.

The employees argued that Section 203(o) was inapplicable because the items were not “clothes” and the act of donning and doffing them was not “changing.” For example, they argued that “clothes” encompassed “regular undergarments and outerwear,” i.e., street clothes, and excluded protective safety items in the workplace. The court found the employees’ “cramped” and “narrow” definition of “clothes” and “changing” unpersuasive, reasoning that the purpose behind Section 203(a) was to leave such donning and doffing activities to the collective-bargaining process.

The court noted that Congress recognized that employers and unions are in a better position than either courts or agencies to “thresh out” how much compensable time should be allocated for “changing clothes.” Additionally, the court observed that collective bargaining allows employers and unions to reach agreements that leave both sides more satisfied than a government or court-imposed solution and that unions may be willing to trade higher wages, enhanced benefits, or improved working conditions in exchange for compensation for changing clothes. Notably, in stark contrast to this decision, the Ninth Circuit reached a different result in Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2003), aff’d on other grounds, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), holding that protective items worn in the beef and pork industries are not “clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o).

This entry was written by Steven Kaplan.

Regarding her overtime claims, Ms. Blackwell alleged that SkyWest violated California’s Wage Order 9 by failing to pay her daily overtime based on alternative work schedule rules and shift trades. The court disagreed, holding that where state law claims require a court to interpret the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), those claims are pre-empted under the RLA. This is because the RLA provides a mechanism for settling labor-management disputes - both major and minor disputes.

The court explained that Ms. Blackwell’s argument ran counter to congressional intent. Notably, in determining whether the provisions in question violated state law, the court would have to construe the CBA under state law principles. The court cautioned that doing so could increase uncertainty and dissent among parties in labor negotiations and undermine federal labor laws.

The court found Ms. Blackwell’s state law claims were “‘inextricably intertwined’ with the meaning of terms in the CBA.” The SkyWest-SAFA CBA contained express provisions concerning overtime, shift trades and meal and rest periods. Therefore, the court’s inquiry into Ms. Blackwell’s state law claims would require the court to impermissibly interpret the CBA’s terms according to California law.

The court further held that even state law disputes that invoke an implicit term of a CBA are likewise pre-empted by federal law. An implied term can arise from practices, usage and customs under the agreement. At issue were meal and rest periods not specifically addressed under the SkyWest-SAFA CBA. SkyWest argued that state meal and rest period requirements may conflict with federal aviation and security regulations, including the Airline Deregulation Act. Those regulations, in certain instances, conflicted with California’s meal and rest period requirements. SkyWest asserted that because compliance with federal aviation and security regulations was not optional, these regulations were implicitly part of the parties’ CBA. The court agreed and found that resolution of Ms. Blackwell’s meal and rest period claims would require it to interpret the CBA’s terms under state law. It noted that doing so not only violated congressional intent, but could subject SkyWest to “‘inconsistent interpretations in different jurisdictions.’” The court granted summary adjudication in SkyWest’s favor on the state meal and rest period claims.

While there are very few rulings that have held California’s wage and hour laws are pre-empted by federal law, the application of this ruling outside the heavily regulated airline industry is yet unknown. The decision is by a trial court and not considered binding authority for other cases; however, the decision is decidedly a large victory for SkyWest. Moreover, it will provide other airline industry employers and other employers subject to incongruent federal directives and state law with an even stronger argument, under the RLA, that they are not required to comply with California state wage and hour laws, including meal and rest period requirements.

This blog entry was authored by Stacey James and Tina Winston.