U.S. Supreme Court defines the meaning of the phrase “changing clothes”

U.S. Supreme Court defines the meaning of the phrase “changing clothes”

supct14781r

By Sharon Vinick

Earlier this week, U.S. Steel and employers across the nation rejoiced as the United States Supreme Court issued a decision regarding the meaning of the phrase “changing clothes” within the context of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  To understand why this ordinary phrase received such extraordinary attention requires some understanding of the Act itself, and the right of labor unions to negotiate over what type of work is compensable.

In 1938, when Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs the minimum wages and maximum hours for individuals working in non-exempt positions, it failed to include definitions of key terms, such as “work” and “workweek.”  The Supreme Court addressed the meaning of these terms in the 1946 case of Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., concluding that the term “workweek” includes all time during which an employee is required to be on the employer’s premises and includes time spent engaged in “preliminary activities . . such as putting on aprons and overalls [and] removing shirts.”  The Court held that these activities – which came to be referred to as “donning and doffing” — are “work” for which employees should be compensated.

Just three years later, in 1949, Congress amended the FLSA in order to provide that the compensability of time spent donning and doffing clothing, as well as washing, was an appropriate subject for collective bargaining.  Thereafter, unions were free to negotiate with employers with respect to whether employees would be paid for “time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning and end of each workday.”  And, not too surprisingly, in the rough and tumble of union negotiations, many employees ended up working under contracts which provided that they did not get paid for changing clothes, even if the clothing was required and took significant time to get in and out of.

In Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation, decided earlier this week, steelworkers asked to be paid for time that they spent putting on and taking off fifteen items of “personal protective gear,” including flame-retardant outerwear, gloves, steel tipped boots, hard hats, and snoods. (For the uninitiated, a “snood” is basically a hood that covers the neck and shoulder area, rather like a balaclava.) Attorneys for the steelworkers argued that these items were “protective gear” and not “clothes” within the meaning of the FLSA.  In contrast, the employer, US Steel, argued that these items were encompassed within the meaning of the phrase “changing clothes” and were appropriately covered under the union contract.

The Supreme Court relied on 1940s dictionary definitions of the words “changing” and “clothes” to decide the case, holding that “changing clothes” encompassed both changing from street clothes to work clothes and layering protective gear over work clothes.  Thus, the court concluded, if a collective bargaining agreement provided that employees would not be paid for “changing clothes,” they would not be entitled to pay for time spent donning and doffing protective gear.

The opinion has been widely hailed as a victory for employers, but its “gotcha” effect is likely to be short lived. The next time the parties sit down at the bargaining table it’s unlikely that the putting on and taking off of protective gear will fly under the radar.

Sharon Vinick

About Sharon Vinick

Sharon Vinick is the Managing Partner of Levy Vinick Burrell Hyam LLP, the largest women-owned law firm in the state that specializes in representing plaintiffs in employment cases. In more than two decades of representing employees, Sharon has enjoyed great success, securing numerous six and seven figure settlements and judgments for her clients. Sharon has been named by Northern California Super Lawyers for the past five years. Sharon is a graduate of Harvard Law School and UC Berkeley. In addition to being a talented attorney, Sharon is an darn good cook.

“Donning and doffing”: The Supreme Court will decide an issue of great importance to employees required to wear gorilla suits to work (and to other employees with workplace uniform requirements as well)

gorilla

By Curt Surls

You recently graduated from a private, liberal arts college in a leafy Midwestern town with a B.A. in Medieval Albanian Poetry.  Nevertheless, you found a job straight out of college.  The good news is that your new job pays a living hourly wage, and you are represented by a strong union.  The bad news is that you have to wear a gorilla suit to work.  Further, the collective bargaining agreement between your union and your employer denies you compensation for the time spent changing into and out of your gorilla suit.  Are you out of luck?

Maybe not.  The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week in a “donning” and “doffing” case.  “Donning” and “doffing” are archaic verbs used only by labor lawyers and minor Dickens characters.  In legal parlance, you do not “take off” your gorilla suit after work; you “doff” your gorilla suit.

Ideally, you shouldn’t have to do any doffing on your own time.  Under state and federal law, if you are required to change into a uniform or protective gear at the workplace, you are generally entitled to be compensated for that time.  Your gorilla-suit-donning time should be compensable.

But there’s a wrinkle to this rule in the context of a unionized workplace.  Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) permits a union to bargain away an employee’s right to compensation for time spent “changing clothes” at the beginning or end of the workday.

Since the late 1940’s, the United Steelworkers union has traded its members’ right to be compensated for “donning and doffing” for other benefits.  And that agreement is at issue before the U.S. Supreme Court now in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation.

The steelworker plaintiffs in Sandifer have to outfit themselves in a variety of flame-retardant safety-gear before commencing their shifts.  They argue that the union has no right to bargain away their right to compensation for time spent “donning and doffing” the protective gear because they are not “changing clothes” within the meaning of the FLSA.  The term “changing clothes,” they assert, refers to “substituting certain clothes for others, not merely putting on something else” over them.  The union, therefore, cannot bargain away their right to be compensated for time spent wrestling with the Kevlar.  They want to be paid for this time.

The company, with support from the Obama Administration, is arguing for an expansive definition of “clothes,” that would include protective gear, and other accoutrements such as safety goggles and ear plugs.  In other words, US Steel and the government want union and management to have the ability to bargain away the employees’ right to be compensated for the time they spend “donning” their protective gear.

Nonsense, claim the steelworkers, who argue that an expansive definition of “clothes” and “changing clothes” could lead to absurd results.  In an analogy that makes my gorilla suit example seem temperate, the steelworkers question whether an overly-broad definition of “clothes” would include make-up for a KISS cover band or Captain Kangaroos’ wig (that was a wig?!).

In the end, most observers think the US Supreme Court will duck the issue of gorilla suits, KISS make-up and children’s show host hairpieces and adopt the definition of “clothes” proffered by the Department of Labor:  Items like hoods, jackets, gloves, pants, leggings, helmets and boots will be considered “clothes” whether or not they are protective in nature.  Therefore, a union can bargain away the right to compensation for “donning and doffing” those items.

And gorilla suits?  If you’re in a union, and you’re required to wear a gorilla suit to work (admittedly, this may not be a substantial demographic), the Sandifer decision probably won’t affect you; “donning” a gorilla suit would still likely be considered “changing clothes.”  However, workers in dangerous jobs that require extensive safety gear will be watching this case with greater interest.

Curt Surls

About Curt Surls

Curt Surls has been practicing in Los Angeles, specializing in employment law, for almost 25 years. Mr. Surls is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, a non-profit professional association honoring lawyers whose careers have demonstrated dedication to the welfare of the community and the traditions of the profession. Prior to opening the Law Office of Curt Surls in July 2012, he was a partner with Bornn & Surls for over 15 years. Mr. Surls was also an attorney with the Oakland civil rights firm then known as Saperstein, Seligman & Mayeda, specializing in employment and civil rights class actions. Mr. Surls also worked for the Department of Industrial Relations and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.

Finally, overtime coverage for all domestic workers in California!

Finally, overtime coverage for all domestic workers in California!

BVHRFetCIAA_z1k.jpg-largeBy Hina Shah

After nearly 75 years of exclusion from federal and state labor protections, domestic workers have finally scored two important victories in their fight for equal treatment.  Late last week, Governor Brown signed AB 241, extending California overtime protections to domestic workers who spend a significant amount of time caring for children, elderly and people with disabilities.  One week earlier the federal Department of Labor finalized new rules that significantly extend federal minimum wage and overtime protections to domestic workers who care for the elderly and people with disabilities.  Together, these actions extend overtime coverage to all domestic workers in California.

These historic changes are a direct result of domestic workers organizing on the local, state, and national level.  Over the past eight years, the California Domestic Workers Coalition has built a grassroots, worker-led, statewide movement in California that includes allies from labor, faith groups and employers.  Similar efforts by domestic workers in New York and Hawaii have also resulted in legislative victories.

The struggle for equal treatment of domestic workers dates back to the beginning of the regulated workplace.  Domestic workers organized a massive letter writing campaign in the 1920s and 1930s. Highlighting slave-like working conditions, they petitioned President Franklin and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, to cover them under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to no avail.  Thirty-six years later, when Congress amended the FLSA to include most domestic workers in minimum wage protections and overtime pay, it exempted live-in domestic workers from overtime and excluded casual babysitters and companions for the elderly or people with disabilities entirely.

In California, a similar letter writing campaign was instituted to get the Wage Board to regulate employment in the home as early as the 1940s.  However, when California finally adopted a Wage Order for Household Occupations in 1976, it exempted domestic workers (called “personal attendants”) who spent a significant amount of time caring for children, elderly and people with disabilities.    Personal attendants finally gained minimum wage protection in 2001 and have only now gained the right to overtime.

These gains, while significant, are not secure.  Because the federal regulations do not take effect until 2015, there is fear that they may be reversed with a change in administration.  The California statute is set to expire in 2016, unless the legislature acts to extend it.

One reason for these time limitations is the fear that home care will become unaffordable for many modest to low-income recipients.  Available evidence is to the contrary.

Currently, fifteen states provide minimum wage and overtime protection to home care workers and twenty-one states provide minimum wage. According to the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute, institutionalization rates are not higher in states that provide home care workers with minimum wage and overtime.  Furthermore, there is significant cost to high turnover rates (estimated at between 44 and 65%) that is a direct result of low wages and poor working conditions.

While neither AB 241 nor the federal rules are a panacea, domestic workers in California have much to celebrate this month. Today’s home-care industry is staffed by trained professionals. These workers are their families’ breadwinners.  The removal of these historical exemptions at both the federal and state level is an important first step in valuing their labor as real work, and recognizing the dignity of those who care for our loved ones.

Hina Shah

About Hina Shah

Hina B. Shah is an Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director at the Women’s Employment Rights Clinic (WERC) of Golden Gate University School of Law, addressing employment and labor issues faced by low wage and immigrant workers.

%d bloggers like this: