IBP v. Alvarez
Employees at IBP and Barber Foods sued their employers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA requires employers to compensate employees for all hours worked. However, the Portal-to-Portal Act creates an exception to the FLSA for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the principal activity of an employee, unless the activity is an integral or indispensable part of the principal activity. Both employers require their employees to don a set of protective gear, walk to their to their work stations, and be ready to work before their paid shifts begin.
In Alvarez v. IBP, the district court held that the FLSA requires IBP to compensate its employees for all time spent donning and doffing equipment because wearing the equipment is integral and indispensable to the employees’ jobs. Furthermore, the court held that IBP must compensate its employees for time spent walking to and from work stations, stating that the work day begins after the first act of compensable work. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and rejected IBP’s argument that walking time does not need to be compensated. IBP contended that walking does not need to be compensated because walking to and from stations was not found to be integral and indispensable. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, stating that donning the equipment is part of the principal activity, and therefore any activity taking place between donning and doffing equipment should be compensated as well.
In Tum v. Barber Foods, the district court ordered Barber Foods to compensate its employees for time spent donning and doffing equipement, holding that this is an integral and indispensable part of the employees' jobs because the equipment was required. However, the district court held that donning and doffing equipment does not start or end the workday. Thus, walking to and from areas where employees received equipment was exempted under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and rejected the employees’ argument that donning equipment starts the workday and doffing equipment ends it. The court also found that the Portal-to-Portal’s exemption extended to time spent waiting in line for equipment.
The cases were consolidated for hearing before the Supreme Court.
Questions Presented:
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez:
Whether walking that occurs between compensable clothes-changing time and the time employees arrive at or depart from
their actual work stations constitutes non-compensable “walking . . . to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity” within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the
Portal-to-Portal Act.
Tum v. Barber Foods:
1. Is the time employees must spend walking to and from stations where required safety equipment is distributed compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act? 29 U.S.C. ยง 216(b), 254(a).
2. Do employees have a right to compensation for time they must spend waiting at required safety equipment distribution stations?
Decisions under Review:
Tum v. Barber Foods
Alvarez v. IBP, Inc.
