Case Study: Kellar V. Summit Seating

Luigi Vittatoe
Dr. George Ackerman
ELA2603 Administrative and Personnel Law
November 23, 2015
Week 5 Case Study: Kellar v. Summit Seating
1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
Susan Kellar contends that she is entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act for work performed prior to the official start of her work shift. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, Summit Seating, because it found that Kellar's pre-shift activities were “preliminary,” that any work Kellar performed before her shift was “de minimis,” and that Summit did not know that Kellar was engaging in pre-shift work. While we disagree with the district court's conclusions regarding the “preliminary”

and “de minimis ” nature of Kellar's pre-shift work, the appeals court affirmed the judgement of the district court because they conclude that Summit did not know or have reason to know that Kellar was working before her shift (Walsh).
2.

What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
Keller claims to have unlocked doors, turning on lights, turning on the air compressor, reviewing employee schedules, and distributing fabric to other workstations. The district court did not hear from the plaintiff’s sister and co-worker. She stated that her sister didn’t work before the start of the shift. The district court found that Kellar’s pre-shift activities were non-compensable preliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act of

1974
3. Why does the appeals court find that the work in question was nonpreliminary? More than de minimis?
Under the de minimis doctrine, employers will not be deemed liable under the FLSA for otherwise compensable work when only a few seconds or minutes beyond the scheduled working hours are in dispute. However, to invoke the protections of this doctrine, employers must show that the amount of extra time at issue is small and that there would be practical administrative difficulties in recording that additional time.
4.

Why does the appeals court find for the employer even though it failed to pay the plaintiff for compensable time?
Kellar forgot to punch in and instead wrote her start time on her timecards by hand, she wrote the time for the start of her scheduled shift, not an earlier time. Kellar also never mentioned to the company’s owners or any other managers that she was working early off-the-clock. Kellar was aware of Summit’s policy prohibiting overtime work without prior permission and had even reprimanded another employee once for clocking in early.
Under these circumstances, the court agreed that Summit had no reason to know or suspect that Kellar was working before her shift. Kellar’s wage payment claim under Indiana law was derivative of her FLSA claim, it failed for the same reasons. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on both claims in Summit’s favor.
5. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not? What if she had told the owners that she was doing this extra work but she continued coming in early because it was the only way to get started on time? Would the outcome of the case be different? Why or why

not?
I completely agree with the court’s decision on this case. Keller was manager and knew the company’s policy on working overtime. The work she claimed to have done prior to her shift was beneficial to the company but it could have been done on the clock. If she had let the company know about her coming in early maybe they would have allowed it especially if they knew how beneficial it could be to them. To prevent any future liabilities employers should maintain an accurate timekeeping system that is consistently adhered to, inform employees about proper timekeeping methods and company overtime policies, train supervisors to prohibit employees from performing pre- or post-shift work as it may be considered non-preliminary and more than de minimis, and to respond to any employee complaints of working off-the-clock as that would likely constitute notice.
References:
Walsh, D. (2015) Employment Law For Human Resource Practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning