The U.S. Supreme Court on January 27 ruled that time spent donning and doffing protective gear was not compensable in Sandifer v. United States Steal Corp. The nine justices were unanimous in the ruling.
The facts of the case involve roughly 800 current and former workers at U.S. Steel’s Gary, Indiana, plant who were required to wear protective gear such as flame-retardant jackets and pants, work gloves, wristlets, hard hats, boots, safety glasses, and other items. The workers sued contending that they wanted to be paid for the time they spent “donning” and “doffing” this equipment. U.S. Steel disagreed, saying any wearable item is clothing. As a result, it said it should not have to pay unionized employees for “donning” and “doffing.” The Court ruled that the time spent donning and doffing protective gear was not compensable because of Section 203(o), a special provision of the wage-hour law applicable only to operations covered by a labor agreement.
The law firm of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine, P.C., has written a detailed analysis of the Court ruling and its ramifications, which is available here.
In 2013, the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, American Meat Institute, and the North American Meat Association filed an Amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court. The brief was filed in support of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as well as several other appellate courts that “affirms the long-established customs, practices, and expressly bargained for collective bargaining agreement provisions of Amici members and their employees.” Plantiffs in Sandifer v. United States Steel sought to overturn the ruling.
