Search for: "Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 31
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2014, 8:00 am by Steven G. Pearl
United States Steel Corp., ___ U.S. ___ (1/27/14), the Supreme Court of the United States considered the meaning of the phrase "changing clothes" in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 8:23 am by Greg Mersol
United States Steel Corp., Case No. 12-417 (Jan. 27, 2014), addressing donning and doffing claims in the context of a unionized steel mill. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:13 am by Peter J. Dugan
United States Steel Corp., which clarified what it means for an employee to be “changing clothes” under Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:13 am by Peter J. Dugan
United States Steel Corp., which clarified what it means for an employee to be “changing clothes” under Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 10:49 am by Adam Kielich
United States Steel Corp., the Supreme Court addressed, in an unanimous opinion, the issue of whether a collective bargaining agreement covering union workers could exclude the covered workers from pay for certain types of donning and duffing time. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 5:28 am by Amy Howe
  Sam Bagenstos breaks down the decision in Sandifer v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 5:35 am by Amy Howe
  The first opinion came in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. [read post]