When the U.S. Supreme Court rules on an issue in a 9-0 fashion — with a decision penned by Justice Thomas, no less — you can fairly conclude that the issue is not all that difficult.

Indeed, the SCOTUSBlog summed up the employment law decision today pretty succinctly:

Workers who are required to stay after

Over the past month, after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, much has been made in the press about how it is unprecedented for the court to consider a company’s religious beliefs in making its decisions.

The issue of taking into account a corporation’s religious belief in the workplace has been also catapulted to

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning came out with two controversial decisions that will impact employers in Connecticut.

The first one, Harris v. Quinn, dealt with whether non-union public employees could be forced to pay union dues.  The court issued a relatively narrow holding, ruling that “partial” public employees could not be required to

U.S. Supreme Court

Much will be written about the new First Amendment free-speech-in-the-workplace case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court today.

But frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them say nearly the same thing — that testimony by an employee who has been subpoenaed outside the course of his

Raise your hand if you know what “Donning and Doffing” is?

To those that have raised your hand, you are most likely: a) an employment lawyer; b) a Scrabble nerd; or c) not being honest with yourself.

It’s just not a phrase anyone uses in real life — like a “snood” (I’ll get to the relevance of that term down below.)

But on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision on the subject that will have a direct impact on when employers need to pay their employees for putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) protective gear.

The case, Sandifer v. U.S. Steel, can be downloaded here.

History buffs will appreciate the decision for its lengthy discussion of the origins of modern day wage & hour law. But the basic gist is this: Many decades ago, wage & hour law developed a theory that “changing clothes” before and after a shift is not compensable working time.  The question remained – what about things like a hardhat? Or a special flame resistant jacket? Or safety goggles?

In other words, should an employee be able to get compensation for putting on and taking off protective gear? 

The court said it would first adopt the 1950s definition of “clothes” — namely “items that are both designed and used to cover the body and are commonly regarded as articles of dress.”  Jackets, pants, suits, but also protective clothing like a hardhat that is, after all, still a “hat”.

What’s excluded from that definition?  Things like tools and accessories. According to the court, “Many accessories—necklaces and knapsacks, for instance—are not ‘both designed and used to cover the body.’ Nor are tools ‘commonly regarded as articles of dress.’” Our definition leaves room for distinguishing between clothes and wearable items that are not clothes, such as some equipment and devices.


Continue Reading Donning, Doffing and “Changing Clothes”: Supreme Court Says When Employees Get Paid

Readers of a certain vintage, will remember Gilda Radner’s character Emily Litella who often said “Never Mind”.  (If you’ve never heard of Gilda Ratner or this, then I’ll pause while you watch this classic video.)  Readers of a later vintage will think of Nirvana’s “Nevermind”. If you just want the dictionary definition, here

Last Friday, lawyers representing two government officials petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments over whether former a 2002 state decision to layoff only union personnel violated those employee’s constitutional rights.

Back in June 2013, you may recall that the Second Circuit ruled that such layoffs did violate the right of association.  I’ve