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

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


Taking a pass on a “reclass” class (or collective): court denies reclassified employees’ certification motion
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 4 2015

The decision whether to reclassify employees whose exempt status is arguable can sometimes create something of a double bind for employers:


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


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


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


To sell or not to sell: justices split on exemption
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • April 16 2012

Seasoned advocates, an engaged bench, and the hottest area of employment law made for an exciting oral argument this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. dba GlaxoSmithKline


First Circuit’s administrative exemption decision could maintain the availability for the administrative exemption for some so-called “sales” employees
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 5 2011

On November 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision in Hines v. State Room, Inc. finding that sales managers for a Boston banquet facility were exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") administrative exemption


Seventh Circuit surprise: appeals court finds pharma reps exempt under administrative exemption without waiting for Supreme Court
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • May 9 2012

The Seventh Circuit ruled yesterday that pharmaceutical sales representatives (“PSRs”) for Eli Lilly & Co. and Abbott Laboratories Inc. are exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) under the Administrative Exemption


A steep learning curve for companies that hire unpaid interns
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 6 2012

Many employers in today’s business environment have had to make do with fewer employees to meet the constraints of smaller budgets