Skip to main content

Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc.

4th CircuitDecember 29, 2009No. 18-1931Cited 24 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
591 F.3d 209, 15 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1135, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28588, 2009 WL 5125769
Judge(s)
Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Trenga, Eastern, Virginia
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 Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Allen Family Foods, holding that donning and doffing protective gear at a poultry processing plant constitutes 'changing clothes' under FLSA Section 203(o), permitting the employer and union to exclude this time from compensable work hours under their collective bargaining agreement.

What This Ruling Means

**Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods: Employment Dispute Dismissed** This case involved a workplace dispute between an employee named Sepulveda and Allen Family Foods, Inc., a food company. While the specific details of what triggered the disagreement aren't provided in the available information, Sepulveda filed a lawsuit against the company claiming violations of employment law. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case in December 2009. This means the court threw out Sepulveda's claims without awarding any money or other remedies. A dismissal typically occurs when the court finds that the employee either failed to prove their case, didn't follow proper legal procedures, or didn't have valid legal grounds for their complaint. **What This Means for Workers:** This case serves as a reminder that winning employment lawsuits requires meeting specific legal standards and following proper procedures. Workers considering legal action should understand that courts will dismiss cases that don't meet these requirements, regardless of how unfair a workplace situation might feel. It's important to document workplace issues thoroughly and consult with employment attorneys who can evaluate whether a situation truly violates employment law and advise on the best way to proceed.

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.