A quick survey of recent court decisions suggests that the "de minimis" worktime concept is still alive and well.
The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that doffing and donning some personal protective items at the beginning and end of a meal period can fall within the FLSA's Section 7(o) exclusion.
Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. paves the way under collective bargaining agreements for excluding time spent donning and doffing many kinds of personal protective items from the scope of FLSA "hours worked".
Misunderstandings about the FLSA sometimes lead employers unintentionally to pay more than the law requires.
One should not conclude from a recent, favorable court ruling that FLSA timekeeping obligations are a "set it and forget it" proposition.
A recent California case supports the view that there is nothing inherently unlawful about the proper rounding of employee worktime.
It is not likely that Alan's time between calls would be found to be worktime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Is an on-call employee's time between calls likely to be deemed to be "hours worked" under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act?
A little-known FLSA overtime exception might allow you to increase employees' basic academic abilities without having to pay FLSA overtime premium for the time they spend learning.
The relevant question under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act gets down to whether Ellen was "engaged to wait" or was "waiting to be engaged".