Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 680 (1946)
- Written by Alex Hall, JD
Facts
Employees at Mt. Clemens Pottery Company (the company) (defendant) had 14 minutes to clock in, walk to their respective stations, and conduct preparatory activities before official work began. It took roughly eight minutes for all employees to punch the clock, and anywhere from 30 seconds to eight minutes to walk across the factory floor to their respective stations. Employees then spent around three minutes putting on work attire and preparing their equipment. For purposes of compensation, the company rounded punch times within 15 minutes of the official start and end times to the hour so that an employee could be clocked in for up to 56 minutes of uncompensated time. Several employees and their union (the employees) (plaintiffs) brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requesting damages for unpaid wages and overtime. A special master dismissed the action, finding that the employees failed to prove that they were required to work the amount of time alleged. The district court used a formula based on estimated walking and punching time to award judgment to the employees. The company appealed, and the court of appeals reinstated the findings of the special master. The Supreme Court accepted the case on writ of certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
Dissent (Burton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.