We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 28

Dressing the part is not enough: 8th Circuit decides that changing into uniforms does not start the “continuous workday”
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

Taking up a question the Supreme Court recently declined to consider, the Eighth Circuit on Friday addressed the types of activities that may start


A Rose employee by any other name? Talk show interns sue for pay
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2012

Last month, this Blog reported on a pair of recent lawsuits filed by former unpaid interns for The Hearst Corp and Fox Searchlight Pictures claiming that they should have been paid for work they performed for the fashion magazine Harper’s Bazaar and on production of the 2010 film “Black Swan.”


It will be a "clothes" call: Supreme Court to decide if work clothes, are "clothes"
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 21 2013

Are work clothes "clothes" under the FLSA? And how much weight should be given to the Department of Labor's opinion on this issue, especially when


First Circuit upholds Massachusetts mandatory treble damages law, affirms class certification, and interprets tip pooling law
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2012

On Friday November 9, 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision interpreting two key Massachusetts wage and hour statutes, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 152A (the "Tip Statute"), which regulates gratuities, service charges, and tip pools, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 150, which provides for mandatory treble damages for wage violations


In its most surprising about-face to date, DOL abandons administrator's interpretation and sides with employer
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • July 30 2013

Those watching the U.S. Department of Labor in recent years have grown used to seeing major policy shifts. The DOL has issued guidance in the form of


Trifles and tribulations: Supreme Court decides meaning of “changing clothes” under 203(o) of the FLSA
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2014

The Supreme Court ruled today that steelworkers are not entitled to pay for time spent changing into flame-retardant suits, hardhats, gloves, and


DOL shows integrity in supporting employer on compensability of time spent in security screenings
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • June 10 2014

The Department of Labor surprised employers last week by weighing in on Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, which is currently pending before


Genesis of a clearer distinction between class and collective actions? Supreme Court decides Symczyc.
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • April 16 2013

The Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling today in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk that brings into clearer focus the fundamental


Dress rehearsals are over: Supreme Court to hear arguments on Monday regarding compensability of changing clothes at work
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2013

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that will directly impact employers relying on 203(o) of the FLSA - a provision


If it looks like pants and it walks like pants Supreme Court considers definition of “clothes” in section 203(o) of the FLSA
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • November 4 2013

This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel, an FLSA case in a group of steelworkers at a Gary, Indiana factory