Skip to main content

Gillett v. Zara USA, Inc.

S.D.N.Y.August 10, 2022No. 1:20-cv-03734
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's conditional certification of a FLSA collective action and Rule 23 class action on behalf of Waupaca foundry workers claiming unpaid wages for decontamination time (changing clothes and showering). The case was remanded for trial to determine whether such time constitutes compensable work and the amount of damages owed.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved foundry workers at Thyssenkrupp Waupaca who sued their employer for unpaid wages. The workers claimed they should be paid for the time they spent changing clothes and showering after their shifts to remove contamination from the foundry work. The company was not paying workers for this decontamination time, treating it as personal activity rather than work time. The federal appeals court (Seventh Circuit) ruled in favor of allowing the case to move forward as a class action, meaning multiple workers could join together in one lawsuit. The court agreed that the workers had valid claims and sent the case back to a lower court for trial. At trial, a judge or jury will decide whether this decontamination time should count as paid work time and how much money the workers are owed. This ruling matters for workers because it recognizes that time spent on job-related activities like safety procedures or cleaning up after hazardous work may qualify for payment under federal wage laws. Workers in similar situations at other companies may be entitled to compensation for time they currently spend unpaid on necessary work-related activities.

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

Similar Rulings

Guzman
S.D.N.Y.Aug 2022
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

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.