Bobbi-Jo Smiley v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co
839 F.3d 325
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Smiley, Blow, Turner) worked 12-hour shifts at DuPont’s Towanda plant and were required to don/doff protective gear and participate in shift-relief before/after shifts (30–60 minutes/day).
- DuPont voluntarily paid a 30-minute paid lunch (plus two unpaid breaks) for twelve-hour shifts; paid break time exceeded the unpaid donning/doffing and shift-relief time and was included in the regular-rate calculation and on paystubs.
- Plaintiffs brought FLSA and WPCL claims seeking overtime for pre- and post-shift work; the District Court granted summary judgment for DuPont, allowing DuPont to offset paid meal-break compensation against unpaid work time.
- The Third Circuit invited the DOL to file an amicus brief and reviews whether the FLSA permits an employer to offset compensation already included in the regular rate against overtime owed.
- The Third Circuit reverses the District Court, holding that the FLSA permits offsetting only for specific premium payments excluded from the regular rate under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(5)–(7), not for compensation already included in the regular rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer may offset voluntarily paid meal-break pay (included in regular rate) against overtime owed for pre/post-shift work | Offsetting is impermissible; once pay is included in the regular rate, it cannot be used again to satisfy overtime obligations | Permissible because FLSA does not expressly prohibit using paid non-work time (included in the regular rate) as an offset | Reversed: offset limited to premium pays excluded from regular rate under §207(e)(5)–(7); compensation included in regular rate cannot be credited against overtime |
| Relevance of parties’ agreement to treat breaks as "hours worked" | Plaintiffs: agreement not required; inclusion in regular rate is the key determinant | DuPont: absence of an agreement means offset is allowed | Court: agreement is beside the point—if compensation is included in the regular rate, it cannot be used as an offset under FLSA/Wheeler |
| Whether FLSA silence equals permission to offset included pay | Plaintiffs: silence does not authorize double-counting; public-policy and DOL guidance oppose offset | DuPont: lack of explicit statutory prohibition implies permissibility | Court: statutory scheme and precedent show offsetting only where statute explicitly allows (premium pay); silence not empowering offset |
| Applicability of prior circuit cases allowing compensa bility-based findings (e.g., Barefield/Avery) | Plaintiffs: those cases focused on compensability and did not resolve offset limits | DuPont: those cases support offset because FLSA does not require compensation for meal breaks | Court: those cases are inapposite—Wheeler and §207(h) control offset scope regardless of compensability |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. Hampton Twp., 399 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2005) (limits employer offsets to statutory premium pay excluded from regular rate)
- Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2004) (employer may not credit pay already due for other reasons against statutorily required wages)
- Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446 (1948) (regular rate must reflect all agreed remuneration; disallows pyramiding overtime premium into regular rate)
- Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419 (1945) (regular rate is a mathematical computation that includes all remuneration not statutorily excluded)