Minnesota Law Review

That’s Not on the Table: Why Employers Should Pay for the Walk from the Locker Room to the Work Station

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay their employees continuously throughout the day, even for activities such as travel time, which may not be considered work. However, § 203(o) of the statute provides an exception to that obligation. The provision states that if the employer has established that employees are not compensated for time spent changing clothes in the locker room, by agreement or custom under a collective bargaining agreement, then the employer does not have to pay employees for that time. This raises the question of whether that unpaid time in the locker room still constitutes the start of the work day, and thus whether the employees are entitled to compensation for the walking time from the locker room to the work station. The issue has led to a recent circuit split between the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Seventh Circuits.

Although a short amount of time is at issue in § 203(o) litigation, such litigation requires resolving a conflict between collective bargaining agreements and statutory rights, since, without a union contract, the FLSA requires employers to pay for both the changing and walking time. This Note argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should resolve the circuit split and provide a framework for dealing with future conflicts between statutory rights and collective bargaining agreements. As collective bargaining has in many ways proven to be an unreliable protection of employee rights, the Court should require a narrow interpretation of § 203(o) and other similar exceptions to employee rights, restricting the statutory terms which may be placed on the bargaining table in a union contract. In doing so, the Court would protect statutory rights for all employees—regardless of union affiliation.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Welcome

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+


cforms contact form by delicious:days