Joining similar decisions applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Portal-to-Portal Act in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, Senior District Judge Terrence F. McVerry of the Western District of Pennsylvania recently held that time spent attending allegedly mandatory pre-shift safety meetings was not compensable under the FLSA because those safety meetings were neither

The United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Integrity Staffing clarified that, under the Portal-to-Portal Act, preliminary and postliminary tasks are not compensable even if potentially done for the employer’s benefit, provided they are not integral and indispensable to the job functions for which a person is hired. Applying this concept, a Maryland Federal Court

Ascertaining the actual “hours worked” by a plaintiff alleging uncompensated working time is one of a factfinder’s most thankless tasks, requiring the judge or jury to apply prevailing law regarding what constitutes compensable “work” to conflicting testimony regarding when, where and how the plaintiff performed that work, and how much work the plaintiff performed. Such determinations

The proliferation of FLSA lawsuits brought by “non-exempt” employees for alleged uncompensated working time has highlighted several important FLSA questions. One prominent and thorny question concerns when and how an employer is deemed to have constructive knowledge of work allegedly performed by an employee, such that the employer will be deemed to have “suffered or permitted&rdquo