Skip to main content

Secretary United States Department of Labor v. East Penn Manufacturing Inc

3rd CircuitDecember 19, 2024No. 24-1046Cited 8 times
Plaintiff WinEast Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc.$22,250,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment that East Penn Manufacturing failed to pay hourly workers for all time spent changing and showering, awarding approximately $22.25 million in backpay to 11,780 workers. The court rejected the employer's arguments that employees bear the burden of proving unpaid time is de minimis and that employers need only pay reasonable time rather than actual time.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Orders $22.25 Million Payment to Workers for Changing and Shower Time** This case involved East Penn Manufacturing, a company that required hourly workers to change into work clothes and shower at the workplace. The U.S. Department of Labor sued the company, claiming it failed to pay workers for the time they spent changing and showering, which violated federal wage laws. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the workers, ordering East Penn Manufacturing to pay approximately $22.25 million in back wages to 11,780 employees. The court rejected the company's arguments that workers had to prove their unpaid time wasn't minimal, and that the company only needed to pay for "reasonable" time rather than the actual time spent changing and showering. This decision is significant for workers because it establishes that employers must pay for all work-related activities, even seemingly minor tasks like changing clothes or showering when required by the job. Workers don't have to prove these activities deserve pay – if the employer requires them, they must be compensated. This ruling protects workers from having small amounts of unpaid time add up to substantial wage theft over time.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.