|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Donning/Doffing Case Illustrates Potential Opportunities and Pitfalls for Unionized Employers.Ford & Harrison LLP - May 16, 2007 Wage and hour lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are becoming increasingly fertile ground for litigation. Why is that? The FLSA provides that plaintiffs’ lawyers will receive attorney fees if their suits are successful. Report Link Donning, Doffing, Walking And Waiting: Paid Or Unpaid Time?Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - January 19, 2006 Test your knowledge on the following wage payment questions. Report Link 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. Report Link 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). Report Link 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. Report Link To Pay or Not to Pay: Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent Traveling To And From Work Areas to "Don and Doff" Protective Gear Is Compensable.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 02, 2005 In a recent consolidated opinion, IBP, Inc., v. Alvarez, No. 03-1238, and Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., No. 04-66 (Nov. 8, 2005), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that employees must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, for time spent walking from their employer's locker room to the work floor after "donning," or putting on, unique protective gear, as well as time spent waiting to "doff," or take off, unique protective gear. The Court also held that time spent waiting to don protective gear is excluded from FLSA coverage by the Portal-to-Portal Act, and that employers are not required to compensate employees for that waiting time. Report Link Supreme Court Decision Expands The Compensable Workday for Many Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 15, 2005 In what is likely to be the most significant labor and employment law decision in this term, the U. S. Supreme Court has overturned long held assumptions concerning the scope of the compensable workday for employees who are required to wear protective garments or gear to perform their jobs. On November 8, 2005, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. _____ (2005), Docket Nos. 03-1238 and 04-66, a case involving the interpretation of work time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court concluded that the donning of protective gear prior to an employee's shift commences the workday, and that time spent walking to employees' workstations is encompassed within the compensable workday. Report Link Labor and Employment Update: Donning and Doffing (pdf).Hogan & Hartson LLP - November 15, 2005 The United States Supreme Court issued a decision last week that should remind employers of the
dangers posed by a failure to comply with even seemingly minor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law regulating the payment of overtime compensation. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez (US 2005)Report Link 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.
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE
Sacramento
December 2, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Los Angeles
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Costa Mesa
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Sacramento
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008San Francisco
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008Sacramento
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPCalifornia Workplace Law Update 2008San Francisco
2008-12-2 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Generation Wars: Tips for Effectively Managing Generational Differences in the WorkplaceMinneapolis
December 2, 2008 Fredrikson & ByronLegally Required Sexual Harassment Training - California LocationsOntario
December 2, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsThe Generation Wars: Tips for Effectively Managing Generational Differences in the WorkplaceMinneapolis
December 2, 2008 Fredrikson |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2008 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds