Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and steel-toed boots may be indispensable to plaintiffs’ principal activities without being integral. The donning and doffing of such generic protective gear is not different in kind from “changing clothes and showering under normal conditions,” which, under Steiner, are not covered by the FLSA. 350 U.S. at 249, 76 S.Ct. 330. Among the activities classified in the regulations as preliminary and post-liminary are “checking in and out and waiting in line to do so, changing clothes, washing up or showering, and waiting in line to receive pay checks.” 29 C.F.R. § 790.7(g) (emphasis added). The donning and doffing of generic protective gear is not rendered integral by being required by the employer or by government regulation. See Reich v. IBP, Inc., 38 F.3d 1123, 1126 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 147 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer (B) holding that the national highway traffic safety commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in revoking a motor vehicle safety standard without supplying a reasoned analysis (C) holding that like burglary car theft is a crime that often involves the use of weapons and other instruments of assault that could jeopardize police officer safety and thus justifies a protective frisk under terry to ensure officer safety (D) holding that donning and doffing safety glasses a pair of earplugs a hard hat and safety shoes although essential to the job and required by the employer are pre and postliminary activities (E) holding that when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are in the vehicle the officer may in the absence of factors allaying his safety concerns order the occupants out of the vehicle and pat them down briefly for weapons to ensure the officers safety and the safety of others
Output (English): holding that the national highway traffic safety commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in revoking a motor vehicle safety standard without supplying a reasoned analysis