Harvey v. AB Electrolux, No. C11-3036-MWB

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: MARK W. BENNETT
• Decision Date: 28 March 2014
• 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

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 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

DATED: March 28, 2014

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

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..............................................2

A. Factual Background...............................................................2

B. Procedural Background...........................................................9

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS......................................................................11

A. Summary Judgment Standards.................................................11

B. Overview Of The FLSA..........................................................12

C. Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Donning Claims......................................15

1. Section § 203(o)..........................................................15
2. Does plaintiffs' conduct constitute changing clothes?............20
3. Custom or practice.......................................................21

D. Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Walking Claims......................................25

E. Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Washing Claims......................................29

1. Legal framework.........................................................29
2. Whether the activities were required by Electrolux................32

Page 2

3. Whether the activities were necessary for the employee to perform his or her duties................................32
4. Whether the activities primarily benefit Electrolux................33

F. Analysis Of Plaintiffs' IWPCL Claims.......................................34

1. Overview of the IWPCL.................................................34
2. Analysis....................................................................35

III. CONCLUSION............................................................................36

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

Page 3

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 legal analysis.

Until March 31, 2011, Electrolux Home Products, Inc. ("Electrolux") operated a laundry appliances plant in Webster City, Iowa, that manufactured washers, dryers, and laundry centers ("the plant"). The plant operated continuously for several decades and closed permanently on March 31, 2011. Electrolux employed approximately 1,800 hourly production workers at the plant. Approximately 1,200 of these employees held assembly positions with the remaining 600 in support positions. There were five assembly or production lines at the plant and the following twelve support departments: fabrication, final pack, plastics, press, paint, tool and die, maintenance, receiving and materials, service, next level washer fabrication, alliance fabrication, and receiving quality and assurance.

The plant was unionized and employees were represented by Local 442 of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("Local 442"). Collective bargaining agreements between Electrolux and Local 442 concerning the plant existed for 50 years. The most recent collective bargaining agreement was executed in June 2008.

Electrolux trained its employees on its timekeeping practices. Electrolux had an electronic badge swipe system which production workers used to "clock in" and "clock out." Electrolux's management accessed daily the computerized badge swipe times of its employees. The first shift of the production line started at 6:30 a.m.¹ Electrolux ran multiple shifts in the various departments daily. Electrolux prohibited employees from clocking in more than 15 minutes before the start of their shifts.

Page 4

Electrolux implemented a work rule in July 2007 requiring hourly production workers to wear gloves and arm guards in all working areas of the plant. The purpose of the gloves and arm guards was to protect employees from potential injuries. Before that, PPE requirements had been decided on a job-by-job basis except that all hourly production workers were required to wear safety glasses. The purpose of the safety glasses was to protect employees from injury. Electrolux required that employees have their safety glasses on as soon as they entered the plant. Generally, employees were required to have their gloves and arm guards on at the start of their shifts.

Many employees were already required to wear gloves prior to July 2007. The gloves and arm guards were made of knit synthetic fabric, and the safety glasses were plastic. Employees in certain other departments were required to wear additional PPE. The other types of PPE were worn on a department by department, job by job, or task by task basis.² For example, some employees, such as drum seamers and other employees who welded, were required to wear aprons. Electrolux required aprons to protect employees from potential cuts from raw edges. Aprons took no more than 30 seconds to put on. Aprons were generally kept in employee lockers or work stations. Some employees may have chosen to wear aprons either to allow them to wear shorts or to keep their clothing clean.³

Some assembly work stations required employees to wear foam disposable ear plugs. The ear plugs were intended to protect employees' eardrums in certain high noise level areas of the plant. For example, employees in the press department were required

Page 5

to wear ear plugs because of the noise level in that department. Employees performing particular jobs within their support departments, such as certain employees in alliance fabrication or washer fabrication, also wore ear plugs. Other employees working near loud machines may have chosen to wear ear plugs. The ear plugs took about 30 seconds to put in. Since they were disposable, employees wore a fresh pair of ear plugs each day. Employees could obtain ear plugs from utility workers or forepersons. Employees often kept multiple pairs of ear plugs so that they could come to work in the morning with their earplugs already. Most employees who wore ear plugs donned them at their work stations. Employees who wore aprons and/or ear plugs generally were required to have those on at the start of their shifts.

Employees in maintenance, tool and die, and certain employees in plastics, paint, and fabrication wore uniforms they received from Electrolux. They were each issued a number of uniforms. Employees who wore uniforms provided by Electrolux were permitted to take them home and don them there. Electrolux also generally required employees to wear hard-soled shoes that were not canvas or open. Some employees elected to wear steel-toed shoes or boots, but it was not required. No employees at the plant wore rubber suits.

Employees in the receiving department had to wear a face shield while...