ILNews

SCOTUS to hear Indiana steelworkers’ case Monday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This question arising in an Indiana labor case will be before the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday: What does “changing clothes” mean?

That language in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act has been interpreted differently in federal circuits around the nation. The case before the justices, Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 12-417, arrives with a 7th Circuit holding that the acts of changing clothes and walking to work stations are not compensable under Section 203(o).

Clifton Sandifer and other workers claimed that U.S. Steel was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by not compensating them for the time they spend changing into safety gear and walking to their work stations. The 7th Circuit rejected that argument, affirming the order of Judge Robert Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.

Alison Fox, who practices primarily in labor law at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in South Bend, is following the case but is not involved. She said that while the question is a narrow one, it could resolve different interpretations among circuits, some of which consider safety gear to be clothing, for instance, while others don’t.

Likewise, some circuits, including the 7th, hold that the statute addresses the question, while several other circuits have ruled the question is one that may be negotiated between employers and unions.

Fox said the varying circuit rulings have resulted in some companies that do business nationwide operating under different practices from region to region. The federal Department of Labor also has changed its interpretation over the years, she noted.

“The whole point of the provision we’re talking about is to create some certainty,” Fox said.

If the Supreme Court affirms the 7th Circuit, Fox said it could invalidate provisions of collective bargaining agreements that compensate workers for the time they spend changing or washing clothes. If the court reverses, a result could be that unionized workers can negotiate for pay during such times.

“A wide range of industries would be affected” by any ruling, she said. “Because it involves common types of safety gear in many industries, I think it will have a wide-ranging impact.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT