Employment – FLSA — Portal-to-Portal Act

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Employment – FLSA — Portal-to-Portal Act

Time spent putting on and taking off work clothes is not compensable.

“It was concern with the disruption of the workplace caused by forcing employers to compensate for travel time and clothes-changing time, as the Supreme Court held they must do in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., supra, 328 U.S. at 690-92; Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, United Mine Workers, 325 U.S. 161, 163-64 (1945); and Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 598 (1944), that drove the enactment of sections 203(o) and 254(a). IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, supra, 546 U.S. at 25-26; Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., supra, 591 F.3d at 217; Anderson v. Cagle’s, Inc., supra, 488 F.3d at 957- 58; Adams v. United States, 471 F.3d 1321, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Thomas v. Howard University Hospital, 39 F.3d 370, 371-72 (D.C. Cir. 1994). ‘The FLSA . . . does not define the terms “work” or “workweek.” The Supreme Court defined these terms “broadly” in its early FLSA cases . . . defined them so broadly, in fact, that Congress found it necessary to amend the statute to restore some sanctity to private employment contracts.’ Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., supra, 591 F.3d at 217.”

Reversed.

10-1821 & 10-1866 Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, J., Posner, J.