Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. (571 U.S. 220)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 27, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 571 U.S. 220 · 134 S. Ct. 870
- Decided
- January 27, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. The question before us is the meaning of the phrase "changing clothes" as it appears in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (2006 ed. and Supp. V). I. Facts and Procedural History Petitioner Clifton Sandifer, among others, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act against respondent United States Steel Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs in this putative collective action are a group of current or former employees of respondent's steelmaking facilities. As relevant here, they seek backpay for time spent donning and doffing various pieces of protective gear. Petitioners assert that respondent requires workers to wear all of the items because of hazards regularly encountered in steel plants. Petitioners point specifically to 12 of what they state are the most common kinds of required protective gear: a flame-retardant jacket, pair of pants, and hood; a hardhat; a "snood"; "wristlets"; work gloves; leggings; "metatarsal" boots; safety glasses; earplugs; and a respirator. At bottom, petitioners want to be paid for the time they have spent putting on and taking off those objects. In the aggregate, the amount of time-and thus money-involved is likely to be quite large. Because this donning-and-doffing time would otherwise be…
Excerpt of a 28,142-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.