ILNews

Woman loses appeal for overtime pay

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A sewing manager who sued her former employer to obtain overtime pay for work she did before her shift started lost her appeal because the employer didn’t know that she was working prior to her shift, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

In Susan Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc., No. 11-1221, Susan Kellar sued Summit Seating Inc. on the premise that she is entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act for work she performed before the official start of her work shift. Her shift began at 5 a.m., but she said she would clock in 15 to 45 minutes early to review schedules, gather fabric, make coffee for employees and prepare work stations so that other employees could begin work right at 5 a.m. She said she would take a five-minute break during that time to smoke and socialize with her sister and co-worker Mamie Spice. Spice claimed that Kellar never performed any work before her shift and would chat and drink coffee until the shift began.

Kellar never mentioned to the company owners during the eight years she worked at Summit that she was working before her shift.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the company, finding Kellar’s pre-shift activities were “preliminary,” that any work she did before her shift was “de minimis” and Summit didn’t know she was working before her shift. The 7th Circuit affirmed on the issue of Summit being unaware of Kellar working prior to her shift start, but disagreed with the lower court’s conclusions regarding the “preliminary” and “de minimis” nature of Kellar’s pre-shift work.

Summit conceded for purposes of its motion for summary judgment that Kellar performed pre-shift work but argued it was “de minimis” in large part because it would have been administratively difficult to determine how much of that time is compensable. Kellar testified that she did the same activities each morning and may have spent up to 40 minutes performing them before her shift started. Judge Ann Claire Williams noted that Summit didn’t point to any cases that have found work exceeding between 10 and 15 minutes in duration is “de minimis.”

The court affirmed on the issue of Summit’s lack of knowledge that Kellar was performing these activities before her shift. Many Summit employees clocked in early and then socialized before their work shifts began, and nothing in the record shows the owners, who were aware of this practice, had reason to believe that Kellar was arriving early in order to work, wrote Williams. In addition, Kellar never mentioned to the owners that she was working prior to her shift.

 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT