Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Steiner Et Al., Doing Business As Cumberland Battery Manufacturing Co., v. Mitchell, Secretary Of Labor

• 1955 • 350 U.S. 247 • Warren Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Steiner et al., doing business as Cumberland Battery Manufacturing Co., v. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, 1955 revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were employees at a battery manufacturing plant who were required to shower and change clothes both before and after their shifts due to exposure to harmful chemicals during work hours. They argued that this time should be considered part of their...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1955
Docket: 22
350 U.S. 247
76 S. Ct. 330
100 L. Ed. 2d 267
1956 U.S. LEXIS 1743
Argued: Nov 16, 1955

Steiner Et Al., Doing Business As Cumberland Battery Manufacturing Co., v. Mitchell, Secretary Of Labor

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Steiner et al., doing business as Cumberland Battery Manufacturing Co., v. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, 1955 revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were employees at a battery manufacturing plant who were required to shower and change clothes both before and after their shifts due to exposure to harmful chemicals during work hours. They argued that this time should be considered part of their compensable workday under FLSA. The defendant, the Secretary of Labor, disagreed stating these activities fell outside regular working hours hence not payable under FLSA provisions. However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the workers holding that these activities are an integral part of principal activities performed by them for which they must be compensated accordingly.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Steiner v. Mitchell, Justice Reed argued that the majority's interpretation of "principal activities" under the Fair Labor Standards Act was too broad and inconsistent with Congress' intent. He contended that changing clothes and showering should not be considered integral parts of an employee's job unless it is a requirement explicitly stated in their contract or if failing to do so would prevent them from adequately performing their duties. In his view, these activities were more akin to preliminary tasks like commuting which are generally not compensated under federal law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse by employees who might unnecessarily prolong such activities in order to receive additional pay.

Opinion written by Justice EWarren
Decided: Jan 30, 1956
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms