IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez (US 2005)
Articles Discussing Case:
U.S. Supreme Court Grants Employees More Compensable Time (pdf).
Vedder Price • January 06, 2006
On November 8, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court
unanimously held in consolidated cases (IBP, Inc. v.
Alvarez, No. 03-1328, and Tum v. Barber Foods,
No. 04-66) that time spent by employees walking from a
changing area to the production area is compensable
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (as amended by the
Portal-to-Portal Act) when it follows the donning of
required protective gear.
Justices Tackle "Walking, Working & Wages" (pdf).
Ogletree Deakins • December 16, 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court began its
2005-2006 term by hearing a pair of
class action employment lawsuits raising
compensation issues for workers
who are required to put on and take off
protective gear before starting their
work shift. A little more than a month
later, in one of the first decisions of the
term, the high court issued its ruling
in these cases. The result has been generally
perceived as a victory for workers.
This decision raises significant
issues for employers with these types
of workers – and raises difficult questions
for many other companies. IBP,
Inc. v. Alvarez (No. 03-1238) and Tum v.
Barber Foods, Inc. (No. 04-66), U.S. Supreme
Court (November 8, 2005).
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Employees Must Be Paid For Some Walking And Waiting Time In Connection With Putting On And Taking Off Protective Gear (pdf).
Nexsen Pruet • December 13, 2005
On November 8, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in two
consolidated overtime pay class action lawsuits, IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Tum v. Barber Foods,
Inc. The Court ruled employers must pay employees who walk from and to changing areas
at the beginning and end of their shift and “don and doff” (i.e., put on and take off) protective
clothing and equipment needed for their jobs. The Court further ruled that the time employees
spent waiting to take off gear at the end of their shift was compensable, but time spent waiting
to receive and put on gear at the beginning of a shift was not compensable.
National Alert -- When Walking And Wages Collide (pdf).
Ogletree Deakins • November 10, 2005
The first dispute heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this term involved a pair of class action
employment lawsuits raising compensation issues for workers who are required to wear protective gear. Today, the high court issued its ruling in these cases, which was generally in favor of the workers. For employers with these types of workers, this stands to dramatically affect their workplace.
