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

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the clothes at issue in this case – flame-retardant pants and jacket, work gloves, work boots, a hard hat, safety glasses, ear plugs, and a hood – are clothes under section 203(o), and therefore the time spent putting on and taking off such items are not compensable. To the extent the hard hat, glasses, and ear plugs were not technically “clothes,” the court noted that putting on these items did not qualify as compensable “work” because the time spent in such activity was de minimis. Accordingly, U.S. Steel was not required to compensate its employees for the time spent changing into and out of work clothes.

The conclusion reached by the Seventh Circuit in Sandifer conflicts with Ninth Circuit authority holding that “special protective gear [is] different in kind from typical clothing” and is not “clothes” under section 203(o). Still, the Fourth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have adopted a different definition – one that includes anything one “wears,” including “accessories” such as ear plugs and safety glasses.

The time it takes for an individual employee to don or doff work related clothing may seem inconsequential, but when such time is aggregated in class and collective actions it can be significant. Thus, the Supreme Court’s resolution of what constitutes “changing clothes” in the context of section 203(o) may have a significant impact on employers nationwide.

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.

In Spoerle, the employees were required to wear safety gear, such as steel-toed boots and hard hats, as well as a smock and hair nets. Each worker spent a few minutes at the beginning and end of the day donning and doffing these items. The employer and the employees’ union had agreed that this time was not compensable. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s argument that protective gear was not “clothing” under Section 203(o). The Court of Appeals held, however, that because Wisconsin’s own wage-and-hour legislation lacked any equivalent to Section 203(o), the donning and doffing time counted as work time (and overtime) under state law.

The Court of Appeals relied upon the “saving clause” of the FLSA, which provides that no provision of the Act “shall excuse noncompliance” with any state law that establishes a higher minimum wage or a lower overtime threshold. Nothing in Section 203(o) limited the ability of states to impose broader requirements.

The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that state law interfered in the parties’ collective bargaining. According to the court, the state statute did not require an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. Rather, the statute required that the agreement be ignored to the extent it attempted to avoid the obligations imposed by state wage and hour law. Management and labor acting jointly through a CBA could not override state substantive law.

This entry was written by Andrew Voss.

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.