Ryan DeKeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc.
735 F.3d 568
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Employees at Thyssenkrupp Waupaca (six foundries) wear employer‑provided PPE and may use onsite locker rooms and showers; Waupaca recommends (but does not require) on‑site showering and changing.
- Plaintiffs (a 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) opt‑in class of ~484 foundry workers) sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA for time spent showering and changing after shifts.
- District court granted summary judgment for Waupaca, applying a three‑part test (required by law, employer rule, or nature of the work) and reasoning that OSHA’s lack of a shower/change mandate foreclosed compensability and that litigation was ill‑suited to resolve the health/scientific issues.
- Seventh Circuit majority reversed: OSHA’s silence does not preclude FLSA claims and the district court erred by ignoring disputed factual and expert evidence about whether on‑site showering/changing is compensable.
- Case remanded for further proceedings because genuine factual disputes (including expert evidence) preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent showering/changing after shift is "work" under FLSA | Showering/changing are compensable because they are required in practice by employer safety instructions and reduce occupational health risks | Not compensable: not required by law or employer rule; optional and primarily a convenience; OSHA did not mandate it | Reversed district court: unresolved factual disputes mean summary judgment inappropriate; OSHA silence not dispositive |
| Whether absence of an OSHA regulation bars compensability evidence | Plaintiffs: OSHA guidance and HAZCOM materials support compensability and show nature of work creates risk | Waupaca: OSHA’s informational requirements do not transform recommendations into required conduct; no OSHA mandate exists | Court: Agency silence cannot be negatively inferred; plaintiffs may present evidence on compensability |
| Proper standard to determine compensability of donning/doffing/showering | Plaintiffs: activities can be "work" if required by law, employer, or nature of work (tripartite test supports plaintiffs given hazardous exposures) | Waupaca: tripartite test shows plaintiffs fail prongs 1 and 2 and evidence fails prong 3 | Court: did not decide adoption of test but held district court erred in resolving factual disputes without considering expert evidence; remand required |
| Whether district court may avoid costly/scientific discovery and expert proof by granting summary judgment | Plaintiffs: contested scientific evidence about health risks makes discovery and expert proof necessary | Waupaca: litigation burden and economic impact justify summary judgment; activities are voluntary so no backpay warranted | Court: courts cannot decline to consider difficult scientific issues; discovery and expert evidence are appropriate; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrentine v. Arkansas‑Best Freight Sys., 450 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1981) (FLSA purpose: fair compensation for work)
- Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 678 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2012) (analysis of clothes‑changing under FLSA in collective‑bargaining context)
- Musch v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 587 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2009) (consideration of showering/changing claims and expert health evidence)
- Schaefer‑LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., 679 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Illinois Power Co. v. OSHA Review Commission, 632 F.2d 25 (7th Cir. 1980) (no negative inference from absence of OSHA standard)
- Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2004) (tripartite test for compensable activities under FLSA)