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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT