Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn three important donning and doffing rulings.

The question posed in these cases is one that has vexed employers for years:  When exactly are employees entitled to pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for time spent “donning and doffing”?  (For those unfamiliar with this area of the law, “donning and doffing” usually refers to putting on and taking off protective clothes/equipment.)

The Supremes let the following rulings stand:

• The Eleventh Circuit’s decision that union-represented poultry plant employees were not entitled to pay for time spent donning, doffing and washing sanitary and protective gear due to a ”custom or practice” of not paying for such time under a collective bargaining agreement.  Anderson v. Cagle’s Inc., No. 07-910.
• The Second Circuit’s decision that nuclear power plant employees were not entitled to pay for time spent donning and doffing protective boots, helmets and glasses and going through security because those activities were not “integral” to the employees’ ”principal activities” and were “relatively effortless.”  Gormon v. Consolidated Edison Corp., No. 07-1019.
• The Court also refused a request by Tyson Foods to reverse the Third Circuit’s decision to order a new trial on whether Tyson’s poultry plant employees must be paid for time spent donning, doffing and washing sanitary and protective gear.  Tyson Foods Inc. v. De Ascencio, No. 07-1014.

What does this mean for employers?

The short answer:  probably not much.

The employers and employees pushing for review of these cases agreed on one thing:  the law in this area is confusing and inconsistent.  By refusing to grant review, the Supreme Court provided little help.

While unionized employers may find some comfort in the Cagle’s case, still up in the air is exactly how much “exertion” is required for time to be compensable.  Tyson Foods pointed to inconsistencies among the circuits and argued that “compensable work” should include an element of actual “work.”  Tyson’s employees argued that “workweek” has long been defined as time an employee is “required to be on the employer’s premises, on duty or at a prescribed workplace.”  The Supreme Court refused to resolve the apparent conflict.

This is one area of the law in which it pays to consult with legal counsel in your particular jurisdiction.  The lack of crystal-clear standards and the inconsistencies from state to state and circuit to circuit increase the risk of class action lawsuits if time is not compensated properly.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 at 6:44 am and is filed under Donning and Doffing, Employment Law News, Supreme Court, Wage and Hour. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.