A blog for employment lawyers, human resources professionals, and union representatives.
This page contains entries under the topic: "FLSA" | Main
August 24, 2005
Paramedics/firefighters not exempt from FLSA
Does the FLSA exemption for "firefighters" apply to cross-trained paramedics/firefighters who spend the bulk of their time providing medical services rather than fighting fires?
No, says the 9th Circuit in Cleveland v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir 08/22/2005).
"Normal" employees get paid time and one-half after 40 hours in one week, according to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
"Firefighters" are exempt. For them, premium pay kicks in after 204 hours within a 27 day period.
The original FLSA provision is Section 207(k). Congress adopted a new Section 203(y) on December 9, 1999.
Applying either of these sections, says the 9th Circuit, these folks were not "firefighters," and therefore came under the 40-hours-per-week rule.
Posted August 24, 2005 by Ross Runkel, Editor at LawMemo, publisher of Employment Law Memo. Try it.
May 16, 2005
Tum v. Barber Foods - Petitioners' brief
Petitioning employees have filed their US Supreme Court brief [pdf] in Tum v. Barber Foods, which will be argued next fall.
Quoting from the brief:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has held that employees are entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, for the time their employer requires them to spend donning and doffing health and safety equipment.
The Questions Presented are:
1. Are employees entitled to compensation for the time they must spend walking to and from required health and safety equipment distribution stations?
2. Are employees entitled to compensation for time they must spend waiting to receive equipment at required health and safety equipment distribution stations?
Courtesy of SCOTUSBlog, one of whose authors, Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Howe, is counsel of record for petitioners. Tom says, "Kevin Russell worked heavily on the case with a team from the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic - Rachel Kovner, Michael Mongan, and Julia Lipez."
Posted May 16, 2005 by Ross Runkel, Editor at LawMemo, publisher of Employment Law Memo. Try it.
May 04, 2005
FLSA opinion letters on line
The Department of Labor web site is publishing Opinion Letters dealing with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [here]. Nice job, DOL.
Thanks to Janell Grenier who writes BenefitsBlog and to Diane Pfadenhauer who writes Strategic HR Lawyer for tipping me off about this.
Posted May 04, 2005 by Ross Runkel, Editor at LawMemo, publisher of Employment Law Memo. Try it.
February 22, 2005
Are walking and waiting time compensable?
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases that will decide whether time spent walking from the locker room to the work area, after donning special protective gear, is compensable under the FLSA.
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Tum v. Barber Foods.
Employees in meat packing plants wear a lot of protective gear. For much of it, the employer and the government require that it be worn. Employees spend time donning and doffing this gear. Both the 1st and 9th Circuits agree they must be paid for that time.
But what about the time spent walking from the locker room to the place where the real work begins, and time spent waiting to put this gear away? The circuit courts split, with the 9th Circuit saying it must be compensated, and the 1st Circuit saying it need not be compensated.
It all has to do with whether this is within the FLSA's "changing clothes" exception, and whether the time is excluded by the Portal-to-Portal Act because it is preliminary or postliminary activity.
For the lower court decisions:
Alvarez v. IBP, Inc. (9th Cir 08/05/2003) [Full text pdf]
Tum v. Barber Foods (1st Cir 03/10/2004) [Full text]
Posted February 22, 2005 by Ross Runkel, Editor at LawMemo, publisher of Employment Law Memo. Try it.
Are walking and waiting time compensable?
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases that will decide whether time spent walking from the locker room to the work area, after donning special protective gear, is compensable under the FLSA.
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Tum v. Barber Foods.
Employees in meat packing plants wear a lot of protective gear. For much of it, the employer and the government require that it be worn. Employees spend time donning and doffing this gear. Both the 1st and 9th Circuits agree they must be paid for that time.
But what about the time spent walking from the locker room to the place where the real work begins, and time spent waiting to put this gear away? The circuit courts split, with the 9th Circuit saying it must be compensated, and the 1st Circuit saying it need not be compensated.
It all has to do with whether this is within the FLSA's "changing clothes" exception, and whether the time is excluded by the Portal-to-Portal Act because it is preliminary or postliminary activity.
For the lower court decisions:
Alvarez v. IBP, Inc. (9th Cir 08/05/2003) [Full text pdf]
Tum v. Barber Foods (1st Cir 03/10/2004) [Full text]
Posted February 22, 2005 by Ross Runkel, Editor at LawMemo, publisher of Employment Law Memo. Try it.
