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.
