Andrako v. United States Steel Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiffs brought this collective action against their employer, Defendant United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel” or “Defendant”), under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Currently, Plaintiffs seek compensation for time spent walking to and from their workstations after donning and before doffing (i.e., putting on and taking off) certain protective gear. Pending before me is Defendant’s Motion to Decertify the Collective Action Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (Docket No. 493). For the reasons set forth…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1987
- Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2008
- Moss v. Crawford & Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1988
- Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1998
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2014
- Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2012
- LaFleur v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2014
- Prise v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.