The Washington Post

Court asked to define ‘clothes’

A seemingly simple phrase can sometimes become stubbornly opaque when the lawyers at the Supreme Court get to it, and that was the case Monday when the justices examined what “changing clothes” means .

It is part of a case brought by Clifton Sandifer and 800 current and former workers at the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Ind. They claim federal law requires them to be compensated for the time they spend putting on protective gear before reporting to their work stations.

U.S. Steel said the workers need not be paid because of an exception in the law that allows employers and unions to agree not to pay for “any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday.” Such an agreement is in place in Gary.

While washing is not part of the dispute, what constitutes “clothes” is at the heart of the matter.

Sandifer’s attorney, Eric Schnapper of Seattle, said that “not everything an individual wears is clothes.” He said it should not be difficult to differentiate between normal clothes and something unique that industrial workers must don and doff.

“Our test is: An item is not clothes if it is worn to protect against a workplace hazard and was designed to protect against hazards,” he told the justices.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit didn’t accept that and previously ruled against the workers, who are required to wear flame-retardant jackets, pants, snood, gloves, wristlets and leggings.

That court took a picture of a model wearing the attire, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held it up for Schnapper. “From the picture, that looks like clothes to me,” she said.

Schnapper said this is a case in which a picture does not tell the story.

But Ginsburg said there were all kinds of jobs that require uniforms — bakers or doormen, for instance — and no one believes those workers should be paid for putting on clothing.

And there was a bit of real-life experience from the court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who worked summers in a steel plant to help pay for college, said there were particularly thick blue jeans that workers would wear at the plant but not elsewhere. Don’t those protect from workplace hazards? he asked.

Lawyer Lawrence DiNardo, representing the steel company, said that the focus should be not on the items a worker wears but rather on the process of getting ready for work.

“Collective bargaining does not focus on whether or not a shirt is clothes or a pair of pants are clothes or protective eye gear, and that is how the statute was written,” DiNardo said. “Given those two points, the term ‘clothes’ as used in the statute was intended to encompass the work outfit industrial workers were required to change into and out of to be ready for work. “

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that would make something like a scuba tank “clothes” for some workers. And she had other examples:

“Your definition would include somebody spending an hour of putting on a suit of armor if he’s going to be a jouster. It would include the space people who put on that complicated white suit that has all the connections to equipment.”

The government proposed that the court differentiate between clothes and equipment.

“For instance,” said Assistant Solicitor General Anthony A. Yang, “the meatpacker might have a chain mail” kind of sleeve, chain-mail gloves and a plexiglass “belly guard” as part of his work attire. Those would not be considered “clothes,” he said.

Interest groups representing manufacturers and others said a ruling in favor of the workers could have a huge impact in back pay and other costs.

At the end of the hour-long argument, Justice Elena Kagan wondered why a government agency had never tackled the question of what the statute means when it says “clothes.”

Schnapper said he did not know, but Justice Antonin Scalia offered a reason.

“Too complicated is why,” he said.

The case is Sandifer v. U.S. Steel.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
Quoted
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 18%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read

politics

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.