Labor & Employment Law

Tyson Seeks Supreme Court Review of Working Time Definition

By Mark E. Tabakman, Esq.

Lawyers for Tyson Foods Inc. have petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case involving the issue of whether "work" must involve some physical exertion.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that  the need to put on safety/protective clothing constituted work although no real physical effort was involved.

The Company is contending that this ruling conflicts with a sixty-year old Supreme Court ruling, requiring some exertion by the worker.  Tyson is currently facing more than thirty such class action suits, so the Company has quire a vested interest in taking this case all of the way.

This is a momentous case and the Supreme Court ruling, which may not issue for up to one year, will have a tremendous effect on the world of work.  As the law currently stands, if an activity is integrally related to the primary job function, the time spent engaged in that activity (i.e. donning and duffing clothing) is compensable.  If the Supreme Court ruled that some physical exertion was necessary, that would bode well for employers (and defendants).

I still maintain that the connection between the activity and the work is the key, not whether sweat has to be generated.  We'll all find out. 

Full post as published by Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights on April 11, 2008 (boomark / email).