Sandifer v. United States Steel
In brief
The Supreme Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit: U.S. Steel did not have to pay these steelworkers for time spent putting on and taking off protective gear under §203(o).
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · January 27, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- Steelworkers sought pay from U.S. Steel for time spent putting on and taking off required safety gear.
- Who it affects
- The steelworkers in this case were not entitled to pay under §203(o) for time spent putting on and taking off their protective gear.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit that the gear counted as “clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act, so the law did not require U.S. Steel to pay for that time.
The dispute concerned whether time spent changing into required protective gear counted as paid work under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Question presented
Does changing into required safety gear constitute "changing clothes" under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
The time petitioners spend donning and doffing their protective gear is not compensable by operation of §203( o ). 678 F. 3d 590, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
What's next
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in place.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Sandifer
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.