WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that could have clarified when employers are required to compensate employees for time spent on preshift tasks necessary for their jobs.

The case involved approximately 1,000 rig hands who worked on oil and gas drilling platforms for Precision Drilling Corp. The rig hands, led by Rodney Tyger and Shawn Wadsworth, argued that the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates compensation for time spent donning safety gear such as coveralls, goggles, and hard hats before their shifts.

The Third Circuit had ruled in favor of the rig hands in August 2023, stating that such tasks are integral and indispensable to their principal work duties. Precision Drilling petitioned the Supreme Court for review in February 2024, challenging the Third Circuit's decision.

Key Legal Points

The FLSA was amended by the Portal to Portal Act of 1946, which clarifies that tasks "preliminary to or postliminary to" someone's principal duties are not compensable. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted these tasks as integral and indispensable if they are essential to the job.

The Third Circuit's decision applied a multi-factor test to determine whether the tasks are integral and indispensable, considering factors such as whether the gear is necessary for job completion, legally required, and whether specialized equipment is used. This approach, according to the Third Circuit, aligns with the majority of other circuit courts.

Divergence in Legal Standards

Precision Drilling argued that the Third Circuit's test undermines the distinct "integral" requirement by focusing solely on whether the tasks are indispensable. The company contrasted this with the Second Circuit's stricter standard, which requires compensation only when the protective gear addresses risks that transcend the ordinary risks of the job.

The rig hands countered that the Third Circuit's approach adheres to Supreme Court precedents, while the Second Circuit's transcendent risk test lacks justification in the FLSA or high court rulings.

Government Position

The U.S. Department of Labor supported the rig hands, filing an amicus brief with the Third Circuit that argued against the transcendent risk standard, labeling it as excessively stringent.

Legal Representation

Precision Drilling was represented by Jonathan S. Franklin, David T. Kearns, M. Carter Crow, and Kimberly F. Cheeseman of Norton Rose Fulbright. The rig hands were represented by Adam R. Pulver and Jonathan Dame of Public Citizen Litigation Group and Justin L. Swidler, Richard S. Swartz, and Nicholas D. George of Swartz Swidler LLC.

The case, Precision Drilling Corp. v. Tyger, case number 23-954, was declined by the Supreme Court without comment, leaving the Third Circuit's decision in place and maintaining the existing split in judicial approaches to determining compensable preshift tasks under the FLSA.