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

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    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. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days