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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT