Donning and Doffing During Meal Breaks Is Not Compensable under Section 203(o) of the FLSA and the Illinois Wage Act: Seventh Circuit | Practical Law

Donning and Doffing During Meal Breaks Is Not Compensable under Section 203(o) of the FLSA and the Illinois Wage Act: Seventh Circuit | Practical Law

In Mitchell v. JCG Industries Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the time that unionized plaintiffs at a poultry processing plant spent taking off and putting on their protective gear before and after their meal breaks was not compensable under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or the Illinois Wage Act, because the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) excluded changing time and meal breaks from measured working time, and the amount of time they spent changing was de minimis.

Donning and Doffing During Meal Breaks Is Not Compensable under Section 203(o) of the FLSA and the Illinois Wage Act: Seventh Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 24 Mar 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Mitchell v. JCG Industries Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the time that unionized plaintiffs at a poultry processing plant spent taking off and putting on their protective gear before and after their meal breaks was not compensable under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or the Illinois Wage Act, because the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) excluded changing time and meal breaks from measured working time, and the amount of time they spent changing was de minimis.
On March 18, 2014, in Mitchell v. JCG Industries, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the time that unionized plaintiffs at a poultry processing plant spent putting on and taking off their protective gear was not compensable overtime under Section 203(o) of the FLSA and the Illinois Wage Act because the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) excluded changing time and meal breaks from measured working time and the time spent changing was de minimis (13-2115, (7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2014)).

Background

The plaintiffs are unionized line workers at a poultry processing plant who claimed that their employer violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to compensate them for the time spent donning and doffing their required sanitary gear during their lunch breaks.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on both claims and dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class for the state law claim. The plaintiffs appealed.

Outcome

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer on both claims.
The Seventh Circuit held that the time the workers spent putting on and taking off their gear was not compensable because:
  • Section 203(o) of the FLSA excludes the plaintiffs' changing time from being compensable time based on their CBA because:
    • Section 203(o) of the FLSA provides that unionized employees are not entitled to compensation for time spent changing clothes at the beginning and the end of each workday if it is excluded from measured working time in their CBA;
    • the parties' CBA excludes both changing time and meal breaks from compensable measured working time; and
    • time spent changing at the beginning and the end of the workday, which is excluded under Section 203(o), is essentially the same as time spent changing at the beginning and the end of a meal break.
  • Unlike an employee who is required to eat lunch at his desk, having to change during their meal break was not inconsistent with the plaintiffs being completely relieved from their duties during their meal break, as is required by 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a).
  • In Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods Inc. , the Fourth Circuit held that the time spent donning and doffing during lunch breaks was not compensable because it was:
    • part of a bona fide meal period; and
    • de minimis.
    (591 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2009).)
  • In Sandifer v. US Steel Corp., the US Supreme Court held that the time the plaintiffs spent during their meal breaks putting on and taking off their protective gear was de minimis and not compensable (No. 12-417, (U.S. Jan. 27, 2014)). (See Legal Update, Supreme Court: Donning and Doffing Protective Gear Is Noncompensable Time Spent "Changing Clothes".)
  • Under the predominance test of the Illinois Wage Act, the time spent putting on and taking off the gear at the beginning and the end of the workday, and before and after meal breaks, was de minimis and not compensable.

Practical Implications

This decision highlights the emphasis courts place on the negotiated terms of collective bargaining agreements in defining compensable working time when deciding donning and doffing cases.