Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc.
664 F.3d 169
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Susan Kellar worked for Summit Seating, rising from cutter's helper to sewing manager in 2004, overseeing seven to eight employees and being hourly non-exempt.
- Kellar regularly arrived 15–45 minutes before her 5:00 a.m. shift to perform pre-shift tasks such as unlocking the facility, turning on equipment, preparing coffee, and distributing fabric to subordinates.
- Her pre-shift activities included scheduling review, fabric/material distribution, coffee/breaks, and prototype work before the official shift began.
- Spice, a co-worker, testified Kellar never performed pre-shift work; instead they socialized after clocking in, creating a factual dispute about pre-shift activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Summit, determining pre-shift work was non-compensable preliminary, de minimis, and not known by Summit; on appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on knowledge, holding Summit had no actual or constructive knowledge of pre-shift work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-shift activity is 'preliminary' under Portal-to-Portal Act | Kellar's pre-shift work is integral to her duties and thus compensable. | Pre-shift activities were preliminary and not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act. | Pre-shift work is integral and indispensable to principal activities and not purely preliminary; however, knowledge issue controls. |
| Whether pre-shift work was de minimis | Pre-shift time ranged from 15–45 minutes and included substantial compensable tasks. | Pre-shift activities could be de minimis due to administrative recording difficulties. | Not de minimis; the duration and nature of the work exceed typical de minimis thresholds. |
| Whether Summit had actual or constructive knowledge of pre-shift work | Time records and early clock-ins put Summit on notice of pre-shift work. | Management had no reason to know Kellar was working pre-shift; clock-ins were common socializing behavior. | Summit lacked knowledge or reason to know; district court's knowledge finding affirmed. |
| Whether Indiana Wage Payment Statute claim survives | IWPS is derivative of FLSA for unpaid pre-shift hours. | If FLSA claim fails, IWPS claim also fails. | IWPS claim fails because FLSA claim is resolved in Summit's favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956) (integral and indispensable activities are principal activities)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (integral and indispensable activities are principal activities)
- Reich v. U.S. Dep't of Conservation & Natural Resources, State of Ala., 28 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir.1994) (employer knowledge measured by reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge)
- Dunlop v. City Electric, Inc., 527 F.2d 394 (5th Cir.1976) (pre-shift activities predominantly for employee convenience are preliminary)
- Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir.1984) (de minimis factors include administrative difficulty and regularity)
- Chao v. Gotham Registry, Inc., 514 F.3d 280 (2d Cir.2008) (employer knowledge and overtime duty considerations)