What is the meaning of clothes? SCOTUS mulls issue in steelworkers' bid for pay during gear change
Image from Shutterstock.
The lawyer for steelworkers seeking pay for the time spent changing into their fire-retardant work gear told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that the justices needed to “fashion a standard” on the meaning of clothes.
University of Washington law professor Eric Schnapper argued that the workers at U.S. Steel in Gary, Ind., were putting on protective gear, rather than clothes. As a result, he argued, they were exempt from a federal law that says companies don’t have to compensate union employees for time spent “changing clothes” if it’s not required under their labor contract. The Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (sub. req.) have coverage of the oral arguments on Monday.
“Our test is: An item is not clothes if it is worn to protect against a workplace hazard and was designed to protect against hazards,” Schnapper said.
The Law Blog highlighted this exchange:
Schnapper: “Not everything an individual wears would be referred to as clothes. There are examples of that in this courtroom: Glasses, necklaces, earrings, wristwatches. There may be a toupee for all we know.”
Scalia: “I resent that!”
The Post notes that Roberts has some real-life experience because he worked summers in a steel plant to help pay for college.
Prior coverage:
ABA Journal: “Workers object to spending time that’s not on their employers’ dime”
ABAJournal.com: “SCOTUS to consider case of workers seeking compensation for time spent donning protective gear”
