Harvey v. AB Electrolux, C11–3036–MWB.

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
• Citation: 9 F.Supp.3d 950
• Parties: Nick HARVEY, Cindy Sturtz and David Ausborn, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AB ELECTROLUX, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Electrolux Home Products of North America n/k/a Electrolux Major Appliances North America, and Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc., Defendants.
• Docket Number: No. C11–3036–MWB.,C11–3036–MWB.
• Decision Date: 28 March 2014

9 F.Supp.3d 950

Nick HARVEY, Cindy Sturtz and David Ausborn, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v.
AB ELECTROLUX, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Electrolux Home Products of North America n/k/a Electrolux Major Appliances North America, and Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc., Defendants.

No. C11–3036–MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

Signed March 28, 2014.

9 F.Supp.3d 951

Andrew C. Ficzko, James B. Zouras, Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan Zouras LLP, Chicago, IL, Jon A. Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, J. Barton Goplerud, Hudson Mallaney Shindler & Anderson, P.C., West Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs.

9 F.Supp.3d 952

James R. Swanger, Kelsey J. Knowles, Michael R. Reck, Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, IA, Kristina A. Yost, Matthew W. Lampe, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 952

A.	Factual Background	952
B.	Procedural Background	956

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 957

A.	Summary Judgment Standards	957
B.	Overview Of The FLSA	958
C.	Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Donning Claims	959

1.	Section § 203(o )	959
2.	Does plaintiffs' conduct constitute changing clothes?	962
3.	Custom or practice	963

D.	Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Walking Claims	965
E.	Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Washing Claims	967

1.	Legal framework	967
2.	Whether the activities were required by Electrolux	969
3.	Whether the activities were necessary for the employee to perform his or her duties	969
4.	Whether the activities primarily benefit Electrolux	970

F. Analysis Of Plaintiffs' IWPCL Claims 970

1.	Overview of the IWPCL	970
2.	Analysis	971

III. CONCLUSION 971

Plaintiffs have brought claims on behalf of hourly employees at defendants' former laundry appliances plant in Webster City, Iowa. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' failure to compensate them for the time they spent donning personal protective equipment (“PPE”), walking to their work stations after donning their PPE, and washing their gloves and arm guards at home violates the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. and the Iowa Wage Payment and Collection Law (“IWPCL”), IOWA CODE § 91A.1 et seq. The parties have each moved for partial summary judgment, requiring me to decide, inter alia, whether donning workers' personal protective equipment is “changing clothes” under the FSLA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(o ).

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

I set out only those facts, disputed and undisputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the parties' motions for partial summary judgment. At least for the purposes of summary judgment, the facts recited here are undisputed. I will discuss additional factual allegations, and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material, if necessary, in my...