## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 C LI FT ON S ANDIFER, e tal ., P la intif fs-A pp ellees/ C ross -App el lants , v.
U NI T ED S TATE S S TEE L C ORPO RA T I ON, D ef endant-Appellant/ C ross-A pp ellee.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:0 7-cv-00 44 3-RLM-PRC

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 15, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 8, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h ese appeal s a ri se out ofa cl ass ac ti o n ( te ch ni ca l l y a “ co l l ec ti ve a ct i o n, ” as i t i s br ou g ht pu r s ua nt t o 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 1 6 ( b ) , a pa r t o f the F a i r Labor St andards A ct o f19 38 , 2 9 U
. S. C. §§ 201 et seq
. , r ather than pursuant to F ed . R. Ci v. P. 23 ) o n behal fo f80 0 f orm er a n d curr ent ho url y work er s a t U.S
. S tee l ’ s s tee l2 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866

w or ks i n Gary, I nd i ana. The pl ai nti ff s a rgue thatU
. S. S tee l has v i ol ate d the Act by f ai l i ng to co m pensate th em f or th e t im e t h ey s p en d in p u tt in g on an d ta kin g offth eir w or k cl othe s i n a l ock er ro om at the pla n t (“ cl othe schangi ng ti m e”) and i n w al ki ng fro m the l ock err oo m to the i r w ork s ta ti o ns , a nd b ac ka g ain a t th e en d o fthe day( “t r av elt i m e” )
. The co l l ec ti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en t between U

. S. S tee l and the ste elw or ke rs uni on does n otreq u ire co m p en sa tio n for s u c h tim e, an d ap p ar en tly none o fthe previ ous c ol l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ents betwee n U. S
. S te ela nd the uni o n s i nc e 19 47, nine y ea rs afte r the F LS A w as en ac te d, r equi r ed i t ei th er . Butthe pla i nti ff s a rgue thatthe A ct i tse l fr eq uir es com pensati on; and i fi t doe s, i t o ver ride s any co ntra ryco ntra ctual p ro vis ion
. B arre ntinev. Ar kan sas- B es t Fre ight Sys te m , Inc. , 450 U
. S. 728, 740-41 (1981 ). Th e di s t r i c tj ud g e r ul e d tha tthe Fa i r Labo r S t a nd a r ds A c t d oe s n otreq u ire th at th e c lot h es -c h an gin g t im e in th is case be com p en sate d , b utthat the A ct m ay requ ire th at th e travel ti m e be com p en s a t e d and he th erefore re fused to di sm i ss t h e su i t. But he ce rt i fi ed the i ssue of th e com p en sab il ity ofthe trav el t im e for an i nt erloc u to ry ap p e a l u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 12 92 (b ) by U .S. Ste el, an d w e a c c ep te d th e a p p ea l. T h e p lain tiffs h av e c ro ss -ap p ea led . T h e y w an t t o c h alle ng e th e di st r i ctj udg e’ s r ul i ngtha t cl o th es - ch an g i ng ti m e i s no t co m pen sable. U
. S
. S te elpo i nt s o uttha t th e cro ss- appeal does n’tsa ti sfy the proce d uralst andard f or an ap p eal un d er section 12 92(b) becau se th e plaintiff s did notas k e ith erthe dist ri ct j ud ge orus forl eave toN os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 3 appe al

. S o we he r eb y di sm iss the c r o ss - appe al

. Butthe di smi ss alha s no pr ac ti ca l s i g ni fi ca nc e. F o r i fthe r ul i ng on cl othe s- c h an gi ng ti m e was er ro neous, the pla i nti ff s’ case f orco m pensati on f ortr avel t im e i s, as we’l l se e, i rr efutabl e. A nd so theycan cer tainl y argue, i n opposi ti on to the a pp eal, thatthe rul i ng was i nd eed er ro neous. So o n to the m er i ts

— and i t wil l si m pli fy e xposi ti on t o s t a r twi th the c l o thingi s s ue . T he F a i r Lab o r S tanda r ds A ct r equi re s that work er s be p aid atl eas t the federa l mi ni mum wag e f o r a l l h o ur s wo r k e d, a nd t i me a nd a ha l ff o r ho ur s w or k ed o ve r 4 0 ho ur s i n awee k

. Butthe st atut e do es no t defi ne “ wor k, ” a cr i ti ca l ho l e tha t the c ou rt s m u st fill

— c r i t i c a l b e c a u s e th e Ac tc o v e r s a n i mm en se v ar i ety o fk i nds o fwor k pl ac e, a nd b y e xpa ndi ng the m eani ng o f“work ” co urts co uld o ve rr ule ag re em en ts ne g o ti at ed be twe enl ab o r a nd mana g ementa nd cre ate unfo re see n re tr oac ti ve l i abi l i ti es. To c u t backo n Suprem e Cour t deci si ons b el i eve d to have done thi s, Con gr ess i n 194 7 pass ed the Por tal

- to- Por talA ct, 29 U .S.C
. §§ 25 1 ets eq . , and two ye ar s l ate r, i n the spi ri t o f tha tAc t, a dde d s e c t i o n 3 ( o ) t o the Fa i r Lab o r S t a nd a r ds A ct, 29 U
. S. C. § 2 03( o)
. Tha t secti on e xcl ud es, fro m the t i m e duri ng wh i ch an e m plo yee i s e nti tl ed to be c om p en sa te d atth e m in im u m h o u rly w ag e (o r, if it is overtim e w ork, at 150 p erce n t of his hou rly w age), “a ny t i m e spe nt in c ha ng i ngc l o th es o r was hi nga t th e beginning oren d of each w or kday which was excl ud ed f ro m m eas ured working ti m e . . . bythe ex p re ss te rm s o f orbycusto m o r p racti ce under a bo na fi de col l ecti veb a r g a i n i n ga g r e e me n ta p p l i c a b l e t o th e p a r t i c u l a r e mplo yee . ” Id. ( “W ashi ng ti m e” i s no t at i ssue i n thi s ca se,4 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 ho we v e r . ) T he p l a i nt i ff s a r g ue tha t the se c t i o n i s i na ppli cabl e be cause w hat the d i str i ct c ourtdeem ed “cl othe s” ar e no t cl o th es wi th i n the mean i ngo f th e A ct, b ut r athe r s afety e qui pm en t. The s ta tu te do es no t defi ne “c lot h es .” The al l ege d cl othe s co nsi st offl am e- re tardant pants a nd j a c k e t, wo r kg l o v e s , me t a t a r s a l b o o t s ( wo r kb o o ts co nt aini ngs te elo r o th ers tr o ngmater i alt o pr o te ctthe toe s a nd i ns t e p) , a h a r d h a t, s a fe t y g l a s s e s , e a r p l ugs, a nd a “ s no o d” ( a h o o d tha tc o v e r s the t o p o fthe h e a d, th e ch i n, a nd the ne ck )
. The se wor kc l o th es a r e i n the record , and since a p icture is w orth a thou san d w ord s, he re i s a photo gr aph ofa m an m odel i ng the cl othe s:Nos. 10-1821, 10-1866 5

The glasses and ear plugs are not clothing in the ordinary sense but the hard hat mightbe regarded as an article of clothing, and in any event putting on the6 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 gla ss es an d th e h ar d h at an d p u tt in g i n t h e e ar p lu gs is a m att er of seco nd s and he nce not com pensabl e, because de m inim is
. “S pli t- second absurdi ti es ar e no t j usti fi ed by the a ctual i ti es ofworking co nd i ti ons orbythe pol i cy of the F ai r LaborStandards A ct. Itis onl y when an em plo yee i s r e q u i r e d t o gi v e u p a s u b s t a n t i a l me a s u r e o fh i s t i me an d effo rtth at co m p en sa b le w or kin g t im e is in vo lve d .” Ande rs on v. M t
. Cl e m e ns Pot t e ry Co. , 328 U
. S. 680, 692 (1946 ); see al so Frank v. Wi lso n & Co. , 17 2 F
. 2d 712, 71 5- 16 (7t h C ir. 19 49 ); P erez v. M ountaireFarm s, Inc. , 65 0 F
. 3d 350, 37 2-7 5 (4 t h C ir. 20 11 ); i d. a t 37 6- 81 ( co nc ur r i ngo pi nion ); Alva r ez v. IBP, Inc . , 339 F.3d 894 , 903-04 (9th Cir. 2003), affi rm ed un d er th e na m e of IB P, In c. v. A lva rez , 54 6 U.S
. 21 (2005). The re st of the o utfi t ce rt ai nl y s e e ms t o b e cl o th i ng, b ut the p l a i nt i ff s a r g ue , n o, i t ’ s “ pe r s o na l p r o t e c t i v e e qu i pm ent. ” Actually i t’ s bo th. Pro tect i on

— aga i ns ts un, c o l d, w i nd , bl i ste rs , st ai ns, i nsectbites , a nd being spot ted bya ni m al s th aton e i s hunt i ng

— i s a co m m on functi on of cl o t h in g, an d an esp eciall y com m on fun ction of w ork clothe s w orn by factory w orkers. I t w ou ld be ab su rd to ex c lu d e a l l work cl othe s that hav e a pro tect i ve func ti o n fr o m s ec ti o n 2 03 ( o ) , a nd thus l i m i t th e ex cl usion largel y to actors’ costu m es an d w a iters’ an d doorm en’ s uni f or m s. Rem em berthatthe sect i on co ver s no t onl y c l othe s- changi ng ti m e but al so w as h ing- up ti m e, and w or ker s who w earwork cl othe s forse l f

- prot ecti on i n a dange ro us ornoxi ous wo rk e n vi ro nm ent a re f ar m o r e l i k ely t o r equi r e si g ni fi can t ti m e f o r was hi ngup after w ork than a w aiter.N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 7 I t’ s true tha t no t ev ery th i nga pe r so n wea r s i s cl o th

in g. W e saythata perso n “wears” gl ass es, o r a watch, o r hi s hear t on hi s sl eev e, but thi s j ust shows that “w ear ” i s a w or d ofm any m eani ngs. A l m osta n y En gl i sh speak er w ou ld say t h a t t h e m od el in ou r ph oto is w earing w ork clothe s . G iven th e sub j ect m atter of the Fair Lab orS ta nd ard s A ct it w ou ld be be yon d odd to say tha t the w ord “cl othe s” i n sec ti on 2 03( o) excl ud es w or k c lot h es , es peci al l y s i nc e th e sect i o n i s ab o utc ha ng i ngi nt o a nd o ut ofcl othe s a t the be gi nning and end o f the w or kday. N ot al l w or ker s w ear w or k cl othe s, but w or ker s w h o change atthe b eg i nni nga nd e nd o fthe wor k daya r e ch an g i ng i nto and ou t ofwork cl othe s, and i ftheyar e g ove rned by a co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent th at m ake s s uch c h an gin g n on c om p en sa b le t h e a gr ee m en t m u st ap p ly to w or k c l othe s, foro ther w i se the no ncom pensati on provi si on would have vi rtual l y no appli cati ons. T h e fac t t h at th e c lot h in g e x c lu sio n is op er at ive on ly i f i t i s agr eed to i n col l ecti ve bar gaini ng i m plies, m or eove r, thatworke rs a reco m pensate d for the ti m e they spe nd cha ng i ngi nt o wor kc l o th es , a nd was hi ngup an d ch an g i ngb ac k

. “ S ec ti o n 2 03 ( o ) pe r m i ts uni o ns a nd manag em en t t o t r a d e o ff th e n u m b er of co m p en sa b le hours aga i nst the wage r ate ; the w or ker s g et m or e, per h o u r, i n e x c h a n g e f o r a g r e e i n gt o e x c l u d e s o me t i me f r o m t he b a se. ” S poerl e v. K raftFoods Global, Inc. , 61 4 F. 3d 427, 42 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. Th e st ee l w or ker s would not ha v e g i v e n up the i r s t a t ut o r y e nt i t l e men tt o t i m e a nd a ha l ff o r o ve r ti m e, whenc ha ng i ngc l o th es o r t r av el i ng to and fr om thei r w or k sta tio n s, witho ut r ecei vi ng so m ethi ng i n re turn; and theywil l ge t to ke ep thatco m pensa-8 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 ti o n un ti l the ne xtc o l l ecti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en t go es in to effect, i n additi on t o the b ack pay the y’ re deman di ng, i fthe y c o nv i nc e u s tha t“ c l o the s ” do n’ ti nc l ud e the workcl othe s worn byst eel w or ker s a t the Garypl ant. F r o m a wor k er ’ s st an dpo i nta ny t im e spen t o n the f a c t o r y g r o u n d s i s ti me “ a tw o r k ” i n th e s e n s e o ft i me awayfr o m ho m e o r s o m e o ther pl ac e wher e he might p r e fe r t o b e i fh e w e r e n ’ ta tw o r k

. B u ti ti s n o tt i me d u r i n gw h i c h h e i s ma k i n gs t e e l , an d s o i ti s n o tt i me f o r wh ich th e co m pan y wi l l wi l l i ng l y pa y . I fthe wor k er s ha ve a l eg alr i g htt o be p aid f o r tha t ti m e, the com pany w i l l be l ess wil l i ng to pay th em a h i gh wage for th e t im e d u rin g w h ich th ey are m ak in g s te el; it w i l l push hard to r educe the hourly w age so thati ts overal l l ab o r c o st s do no t r i se . The s te eli ndus tryi s i nt er nati onaland h ighl y c om peti ti ve, and unio ns te m per thei r wa g e de man ds t o a v o i d k i l l i ngthe g o o s e tha tl ays the g ol den egg s. They don ’t w ant the A m er i can st eel ind ustry t o g o wher e so much Am er i ca n manuf ac tu r i ng ha s gone i n rece nt years

— ab road

. Th e plaintiff s are advers e t o thei r un ion , t o the inter est s o fo ther ste el w or ker s, and to thei r own l ong- ter m i nter est s. The pla i nti ff s ci te l anguage fro m a num bero fcas es to the e ffec t th at“ ex empti o ns ” from th e F ai r Labo r S ta nd ar d s A c t a re to be co n st ru ed n ar ro w ly. E .g., M o r e au v. K leven ha gen , 50 8 U .S. 22 , 33 (1 9 93 ); A. H
. Phi l l ips, Inc . v. Wal l i ng, 32 4 U.S
. 49 0, 49 3 ( 1945 )
. W e express ed ske pti ci sm i n Yi v. St e r l i ng Coll i s i on Cen t e rs , Inc . , 480 F. 3d 505, 508 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , a sk i ngr he to r i ca l l y : “ W hy s ho ul d o ne prov isi on i n a s tatute t ake pre cedence o verano ther ?”N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 9 No ma t t e r ; s e c t i o n 2 0 3 ( o ) d oes n o tc r e a t e a n e xe mpti on. The Fa i r LaborS tandard s A c t has a sect i on enti tl ed “Exem pti ons”; i t i s 29 U .S
. C. § 2 13; the excl usi on o fc ha ng i ngt i m e i s no t i n tha t se ct i o n. This i s m or e t h an a quibbl e. There ’ s a di ffer ence between excl usi on a nd exem pti on, o r, equi val entl y, b et w ee n sc op e a n d co ve ra ge . Th e F L SA d oe s n otap p ly to A m er ica n w or ker s abro ad. Or t o sol die rs . Or t o cer tai n people w h o vol unteerf orpart i cul arkind s o f ch ar i tabl e wor k

. The se e xc l us i o ns he l p t o de fi ne the s c o pe o fthe A ct. T ha ts c o pe i s de fi ne d in 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 0 3 , wh i c h i s e n t i t l e d “ De fi n i t i o ns ” a n d i s wh e r e we fi nd the provi si on co ncer ni ng com pensati on forcl othe schangi ng ti m e, r atherthan i n sec ti on 2 13, wh er e instea d w e fi nd exem pti ons f orcer tai n types o fworke r, such as cer tai n agr i cul tura l worke rs . Sec tio n 203 ( o) cr eat es ane xc l us i o n r athe r tha n a n e xe m pti o n, a s al l b uto ne appell ate deci si on t o add re ss the i ssue h as hel d. Se e Sal azarv. But t e r b al l, LL C, 644 F. 3d 1130 , 1138 (1 0 t h C ir. 20 11 ); Frankl i n v . Ke l l ogg Co. , 61 9 F
. 3d 604, 61 1- 12 ( 6th C ir. 20 10 ); A ll en v. M cWane, Inc. , 593 F.3d 449, 458 (5th Cir. 20 10 ); A nders on v. C agle’s, Inc. , 4 88 F. 3d 945, 95 7- 58 (11th Cir. 2007). The outl i eri s A lv a rez v. IBP , Inc. , sup ra , 33 9 F
. 3d at 905 (the a ff ir m an ce of the d ecision by th e Sup rem e C ou rt w as on o thergr ounds). But as the Ande rs on de c i si on poi nts out, 488 F. 3d at 957, the N i nth Cir cu it s ee m ed to have f or got ten that s ubsection (o ) o fse cti on 2 03 i s no t foun d i n the s ec ti o n o fthe F LS A tha t cr ea te s ex empti o ns. The Ni nth Ci r cui t al so tho ug hti t i m po r ta nt10 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 th at p rotective cloth ing (the w orkers in qu estion w ere em plo yed i n a m eat
- packi ng pl ant a nd were re quir ed to wea r pr o te ct i ve workc l o th es s i m i l art o tho se the steelw orkers w ear, see 339 F. 3d at 898 n . 2) is “diffe r e n t in kind from typ ical clothing , ” w hich the cou rt i nstance d by “ w ar m cl othin g. ” Id. at 905. But thi s was j ust to s ay that w or k c l othe s a re notst re et cl othe s. T ha t can ’t be the en d of th e ana lysis . S in ce w orkers very ra r e l y c ha ng e a two r kfr o m s t r e e tc l o the s i nt o s t re et c lot h es , sec tio n 20 3 ( o ) w ou ld as w e s aid be virt u ally em pty i fthe N i nth Cir cui t were ri ght. So the dist ric t j ud ge w as cor re ct t o rul e that, gi ven th e t e r m s of th e coll ective ba rgaining agreem en t, U
. S. S te eldo es n’ t ha ve t o c o m pen sa te i ts w ork er s f o r the tim e th ey sp en d ch an ging into an d ou t of th eir w ork cl o th es. W e a dd tha t th e r ul i nga cc o r ds wi tha l l b uto ne re p or te d ap p ella te d e c isio n, an d ag ain th e o u tlie r is th e N i nth Ci r cui t’ s dec i si o n in A lva rez . S ee Sal azarv. Butt e r b al l, LL C, sup ra , 644 F.3d at11 36 -41 ; Frankl i n v. Ke l l ogg Co. , sup ra , 619 F.3d at61 0-1 6; Sepulve da v. A ll en Fam ily Foo ds, Inc. , 59 1 F.3d 20 9, 21 4-1 8 (4 th C ir. 20 09 ); Ande rs on v. C agle’s, Inc. , sup ra , 488 F.3d 945, 955-58 (11th Cir. 2007); B ej il v. Ethicon, Inc. , 26 9 F
. 3d 477, 48 0 n . 3 (5th Cir

. 20 01) ( percur i am)
. And i n Spoerl e v. K raftFoods Global, Inc. , sup ra , 6 1 4 F
. 3 d a t4 2 8 , we a do pt e d Sepul ve da ’ s r ea so ni nga nd concl usi on without underta ki ng a separ ate anal ysi s. B u t th e j u d g e ’ s r u l i n gth a tth e c l o th e s - c h a n g i n gt i me i sn ’ t c om p en sabl e m ak es hi s r ul i ngtha t th e co m pan y m us t co m pen sa te the p lai nt i ff s f o r t r av elt i m e puz zl i ng an d par ado xi ca l ( whi ch i s why, as we sa i d ea r l i er, theN os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 11 p lai nt iffs w ere ent itl e d to argue aga inst th e j ud ge’s rul i ng o n cl othe s- changi ng ti m e without having to cro ss ap p ea l). T h e P o rt al-t o-P or ta l A c t e x em p ts from th e m in im um wage and ov er tim e pr ovi si ons ofthe Fai r Labor S ta nda r ds Act “wal k i ng, r i di ng, or tr av el i ngt o a nd f ro m the actualpl ace ofper f or m ance o fthe pri nci pal acti vi ty oract i vi ti es w hi ch such em plo yee is em plo yed to perform

. ” 2 9 U.S
. C. § 2 54( a)
. H ad the c l othe sc h a n g i n gt i me i n th i s c a s e n o tb e e n r e n d e r e d n o n c o mpensabl e pursuant to sect i on 2 03( o), it w oul d have be en a pr i nc i pala ct i vi ty. Butunl es s ch an g i ngi nt o a nd changi ng o ut o fwork cl othe s a re pri nci pal act i vi ti es eve n w hen m ade n oncom pensabl e pursuant to sect i on 20 3( o ) , the e xe m pti o n in s ec ti o n 2 54 ( a) a ppl i es , a nd U
. S. S tee l need notco m pensate f ortr avelti m e. T h e jud ge th ou g h t t h at clo th es -c h an gin g t im e c ou ld be a “ pr i nc i pala ct i vi ty ” ev enthou gh the e m pl o y era nd th e uni on had deci ded , as he a gr eed the y were enti tl ed to do, thatchanging ti m e i s no t work t im e and need not b e c o mp e n s a t e d

. I fi ti s n o tw o r kt i me

— th e w orkers ar en’ t be i ng pai d and thei r unio n has a gr eed to thei r not b ein g p aid

— h ow ca n it be on e of th e “ p rin c ip al . .

. ac tiv it i e s wh i c h [ th e ] e mpl o y e e i s e mpl o y e d t o p e r f o r m”? He i s r equi re d to w earwork cl othe s, and f orthatm att er he i s re quir ed to show up f or w or k. Bu t he i s not em plo ye d to sho w up orem plo yed to change cl othe s. N ot al l r equi re m ents i m posed on em plo yee s co nstit u te em p loy m en t. A n em p loy ee m ay be req u ire d to ca ll in when he i s si ck, b utunl es s he i s o n pa i d s i ckl ea ve he is n otp aid for t h e t im e itta ke s t o p lac e t h e c all.12 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 I n Ste ine r v. M it chel l, 3 50 U. S
. 2 47, 2 52

- 53 ( 19 56 ) , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that the te rm “princi pal act i vity oract i vi ti es” i ncl ud ed al l act i vi ti es th at ar e a n “i ntegr al and i nd i spensabl e par t o fthe prin c ipal act i vi ti es” f or w hich the em p loyee i s em p loyed, and the C ou rt r ea ffirm ed tha t r ul i ngi n IB P, Inc. v. A lva rez , sup ra , 54 6 U
. S. at37
. I fan e m p loy er requi re s hi s e m plo yee s t o don and doffwork cl othe s a t the workpla c e, then d on n i ng and doffi ng ar e a n i ntegr aland i nd i spensable par t o fthe wor k er s’ main a cti vi ty( i n thi s ca se , making st ee l) an d th er efo re a p rin c ip al a c tiv ity
. Ste ine r v. M it chel l , sup ra , 350 U .S. at 2 56
. A lva rez h eld th at w h en th is is th e ca se the t i m e th e wor k ers pen ds wal k i ngfr o m the l o ck err o o m t o the wor k si te i s no t tim e wal k i ngt o a nd f r om a pr i nc i pala ct i vi ty, b uti ns te ad ti m e wal k i ng betw een pr i nc i pala ct i vi ti es , a nd s o i s no t wi th i n the e xem p tio n cr ea t e d b y t h e P or ta l-to -P or ta l A c t, j u st as if the work erwere a m i l l w ri ght who i n sp ec ts, r epai rs , re pla ces, i nstal l s, adj u st s, and m ai ntai ns m echani cal e qu i pme nti n di ffe r e ntp a r t s o fthe ste elmi l l a nd t o do these ta sks m ust wal k fro m o ne pi ece ofequi pm ent t o anothe r. S ee IB P, Inc. v. A lva rez , sup ra , 54 6 U.S
. at37
. Butthe Co ur t i n Stein ertho ught i t s i gni fi cant that the r e wa s n o c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i ni ng agr e e men ttha tma de cl othe s- changi ng ti m e no ncom pensabl e. The Courtr em ar ked “the cl eari m pli cati on” ofse cti on 2 03( o) “that cl othe s chang i ng and w ashi ng , w hi ch ar e o therw isea p ar t o fthe pri nci pal act i vi ty, m ay be e xpressl y e xcl ud ed f ro m co ver age byagre em ent. ” Ste ine r v. M it chel l , sup ra , 350 U
. S. at 255 ( em phasi s add ed). That i s w h at h appened in th is cas e. Se c tio n 20 3(o ) p er m its th e pa rt ie s t o a co l-N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 13 l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n ga g r e e me n tt o r e c l a s s i fy c h a n g i n gt i me as nonw or kin g t i m e, and theydi d so, ag re eing tha t the work day would not s ta rt w hen the w or ker s chang ed th eir clo th es ; i t w ou ld st ar t w h e n th ey arr ive d atth eir wo r ks i t e . I fc l o th e s - c h a n g i n gt i me i s l a wfu l l y no tc o mpensated, we can’ t s ee how i t coul d b e thought a princi pal empl o y m en t ac ti vi ty, a nd s o s ec ti o n 2 54 ( a) ex em pts the tr avelti m e in thi s ca se. A s with cl othe s- changing ti m e, worke rs would not benefi t in the l ong run fro m a rul e that t ra velti m e m ust be com p en sated

. I t w ou ld m ean that i n a n 8 -h ou r shift ( th e ho ur l y wor k er s atthe Ga r y s te elwor k s wor k8

- ho ur shi fts) , the em plo yerwould not obtai n ei ght ho urs of producti ve w or k; he woul d be paying the sa m e wa ge a n d g e t t i ng l e s s w o r ki n r e t u r n ( o r g e t t i n gth e s a me w or k b ut payi ng ti m e a nd hal fo ve rti m e forthe w or ker s’ tr avelti m e) , and so the w age would have to fa l l the ne xtt i m e th e co l l ec ti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en t w as ren egotiated un less the law s of econ om ics w ere re p ea led . E m p loy er s w ou ld als o b e m ov ed to lim it the tim e they a l l owed thei r w or ker s fortr avel( w hi ch woul d r equi r e m o r e su per vi so r s and c au se di spu te s) a nd perha p s t o r edu ce t r av elt i m e fur th erb y movingthe l ock err oo m s cl ose r to the w ork sta ti ons. These m eas ures w oul d spel l hi gherco sts f orthe em plo yer

— h igh er l ab or c os ts . T h e h i gh er su c h co st s a re , th e low er th e h ou rly wag e wi l l b e . An d s o th e h i g h e r c o s t s wo u l d b e b o r ne ult i m ate l y b y the worke rs . Em plo yer s co uld e m ascul ate the pla i nti ff s’ i nter preta
ti o n o fthe “ pr i m ar y activ i ty ” pr o vi si o n b y pl ac i ngthe14 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 l ock err oo m s in th e w or k s ta tio n s, for th en th er e w ou ld be no post- pri m ar y- acti vi ty tr avel ti m e. There i s som eth i nga m i ss wi th a n int er pr et at i o n tha t i m pl i es tha t th e l o ca ti on of the l o ck err o o m , r athe r tha n the a m o unt of ti m e involved i n w alki ng to one’s w ork statio n, det ermi ne s o ne ’ s s t a tu t o r y e nt i t l e men tt o c o mpe ns a t i o n. S up po se i t i s 10 0 y ar ds f r o m the pl an t en tr an ce t o the l o ck err o o m a nd a no th er1 00 y ar ds to the wor ks ta ti o n. Onthe p l a i nt i ff s ’ v i e w, t r a v e r s i ngthe s e c o nd 1 0 0 y a r ds is c om p en sa b le, th ou gh t r a ve rs in g t h e firs t 1 00 ya rd s is not, bu t ifthe locker room w ere ad j acen t to the w ork s t a t i o n n o n e o fth e w o r k e r s ’ t r a v e l t i me wo u l d b e c o mp en sab le even th o u gh the am ou nt of w alki ng they ’d be doing would be i denti cal

. W hat s ense coul d that m ake ? I t wa s c o nc e r n wi th the di s r up t i o n o fthe wo r k pla ce caused byf or ci ng em plo yer s t o com p en sa te f ortr avel tim e an d c lo th es-ch an ging tim e, as th e Sup rem e C ou rt he l d the y m ust do i n An de rs on v . M t
. Cl e men s Po t t e ry Co ., sup ra , 328 U .S. at 6 90 -92 ; Je wel l Ri dgeC oal C orp. v. Lo ca l No. 61 67, U nited M ine Wo rkers , 32 5 U. S
. 1 61 , 1 63

- 64 ( 19 45 ) ; a nd Ten ne s s e eCoal, Ir on & Rai l r oad Co. v. M us co da Loc al No. 12 3 , 321 U
. S. 59 0, 59 8 ( 1944 ) , thatdro ve th e enactm ent o f se c tio n s 2 03 (o) a n d 25 4(a ). IB P, Inc
. v . A l v a rez , sup ra , 54 6 U .S. at 2 5-2 6; Sepulve da v. A ll en Fam ily Food s, Inc. , sup ra , 59 1 F.3 d at21 7; A nders on v. C agle’s, Inc. , sup ra , 48 8 F
. 3d at 957- 58 ; A da m s v. U nited Sta tes , 471 F. 3d 1321, 1324-25 (Fed

. Cir. 20 06 ); Thom as v. Howar d Univ e rs i ty Hospi t al , 39 F. 3d 370, 37 1- 72 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 99 4)
. “ The F LS A .
. . doe s no t defi ne the ter m s ‘ w or k’ o r ‘ w or kweek. ’ The S up re m e Cour t defined these te rm s ‘ bro adly ’ i n i ts ear l y F LSA ca se s . . . defi ned th em so broad ly, i n fact, that C ong ress foun d i t nec essaryN os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 15 to am end the s tatute t o re sto re so m e sancti ty to pri vate em plo ym ent c ontr acts
. ” Sep ulv eda v. A llen F a m ilyF o o ds, Inc. , sup ra , 59 1 F
. 3d at 217. This h istor y pr ovi des gui dance to the m eani ng o f

“ c l o th e s ” a n d “ p r i n c i p a l a c t i v i t y ” b y s h o wi n g th atCo ng r es s was t r y i ngt o e li m i na te the di sr upt i o ns tha t th e Court’ s inter preta ti on o fthe Fai r LaborS ta n d ards A ct h ad ca u se d , an d to allow th e d et er m in at ion of w h at is co m pen sabl e wor ki n b o r der l i ne c as es ( i s chan g i ng i nto w or k c l othe s “ w or k”? i s wal king fr om a l ock err oo m to a wo r ks t a t i o n “ wo r k ” ? ) t o b e s e t t l e d b y n e g o t i a t i on between l aborand m anage m ent. A s the pre am bl e t o the Po rt al

- to- Por talA ct s tat es, r atherdram ati cal l y, Th e Co ng r e s s fi nd s tha tthe F a i r Lab o r S t a nd a r ds A c t o f 19 38
. . . h as b e en int er p re te d j u d icia lly in di sr ega r d o fl o ng - es tabl i sh ed cus to m s, pr ac ti ce s, a nd contr acts betw een em plo yer s a nd em plo yee s, ther eby c re at in g w h olly u n ex p ec te d liab ilitie s, im m en se in am ou nt and retroactive in ope ration, up on em p loyers w i th the r esul ts that, i fsa i d A ct a s s o i nter prete d o r cl ai m s ar i sing unde r su ch i nt er pr et at i o ns w ere pe r mi t t e d t o s t a nd , ( 1 ) the p a y men to fs uch l i ab i l i ti es w o ul d b r i ngabo utfi na nc i alr ui n o fmany em plo yer s a nd se ri ousl y i m pai r the c api talr eso urces ofm any o ther s, ther eby re sul ti ng i n the re du cti on o fi ndus tr i alo per at i o ns , h al tingo fe xpa ns i o n a nd de v e l o p me n t, c u r t a i l i n g e mpl o y me n t, a n d t he ea r ni ngpo wero fe m pl o y ee s; ( 2) the c r edi t o fmany em p loyers w ou ld be serious ly im p aired; ( 3 ) th ere woul d b e cr ea te d b o tha n ext en ded an d c o nt i nuo us16 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866

unc e r t a i nty o n the p a r to fi nd us t r y, b o th e mpl oye r and em plo yee , as t o the fi nanci alco nd i ti on o fpro du cti ve est abl i shm ents and a gr oss i n eq u al i ty of com peti ti ve condi ti ons b etw een e m plo yer s a nd bet we e n i nd us t r i e s ; ( 4 ) e mpl o y e e s wo ul d r e c e i ve w i nd f al l paym ents, i nc lu ding l i quidate d dam age s, o f su ms f o r a c t i v i t i e s p e r f o r me d b y th e m wi th o u ta ny ex p ec ta tio n of re w ar d be y on d th at inc lu d ed in th ei r a g r ee d r at es o fpa y ; (5) ther e woul d o cc urthe prom oti on o fi ncre asi ng dem ands f orpaym ent t o em plo yee s forenga gi ng in acti vi ti es no co m pensati on f orwh i ch had been conte m pla ted byeither th e em p loyer orem p loyee at the t im e they w ere en g ag ed i n; [ an d] ( 6) v o l unt ar y c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng w ou l d be i nter fer ed w i th and i nd ustr i aldi sputes between em plo yee s a nd em p loy er s a nd betw een e mp l o y e e s a n d e mp l o y e e s w o u l d b e c r e a t e d
.... 29 U
. S. C
. § 251(a). Only one previ ous a pp el l ate cas e has deci ded wh ether noncom pensabl e chang i ng ti m e ca n be w or k ti m e for pu rp oses o fthe t r av el

- ti m e ex empti o n. I n Frankl i n v . Ke l l ogg Co ., 61 9 F .3d 60 4, 61 8-1 9 (6 th C ir. 20 10 ) , a s in th is case , the em plo yer, i nvoking sect i on 203( o) , d id not pay i ts w or ker s forti m e s pent changi n g into w or k c l othe s. The cour t co ncl ud ed never thel ess that changin g tim e, bec ause re quir ed by the e m plo yer, was a “pr i nc i pala ct i vi ty
. ” Th i s se ems c l ea r l y wro ng, f o r the re aso ns we’ve expl ai ned ( and the Franklin o pi ni on offer s o nl y a co n c lu sio n, notr eas ons)
. But beca use by d isa g r ee i ngwi th Franklin we woul d c r ea te a n int er-N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 17 ci r cui t co nfl i ct, we ha ve c i r cul at ed th is o pi ni o n t o the ful l c o ur t i n a dva nc e o fpub l i ca ti o n. 7 thCi r . R. 4 0(e). N one ofthe j ud ge s i n re gul aract i ve ser vi ce v ote d to h ea r th e c as e e n ba n c . (Jud ge W illiam s d id n otp ar tic ip at e in th e R u le 4 0(e ) co n sid er at ion of th e m at te r.) The Departm ent o fLaborh as parti ci pated as an am i c u s c uri ae i n thi s a pp ealo n the si de ofthe pla i nti ff s, and w e e nd byco nsi deri ng wh at w ei ght we s h ou l d gi ve i t s v i e ws . Du r i ngthe Cl i nt o n Admi ni s t r a t i o n the De par tm en t took a narrow view of th e m ean ing o f th e term
“ c l o th e s ” f o r p u r p o s e s o fd e t e r mi n i n gw h e th e r t i me spent i n changi ng i n and out o fwork cl othe s co uld be ex cl ude d unde r s ec ti o n 2 03 ( o ) fr o m the F LS A’s min i m um w age an d overtim e prov isions
. See U
. S. De p ’t ofLa bor, Op i ni on Lett er, 20 01 W L 58864 (J an. 15 , 20 01) ; Opini on Let te r, 1 997 W L 9 98 04 8 ( Dec
. 3 , 1 99 7)
. Dur i ngthe Bu sh A d m i ni str ati on the Departm ent t oo k a br oad vi ew

—bro ader than we tak e

— o fwhat“ cl o th es ” m ea ns i n the F LS A, a nd a dded th atc l o th es - ch an g i ngt i m e ex cl ud ed und erse cti on 2 03( o) co uld n ot b e a “princi pal acti vi ty” under the P or tal- to- Por talA ct. U
. S. Dep’t of L abor, Op inion L etter, 2007 W L 2 0 6 6 4 54 (M ay 14, 2007); Op i ni on Lett er, 20 02 W L 33941 766 ( J une 6, 20 02)
. A fter th e ch an g e i n a dm i ni st r ations i n 2 00 9 th e Depa r tment re ver ted to the Cli nton Ad m i ni str ati on’ s pos i ti on o n “c ha ng i ngc l o th es ” an d al so r ej ec te d the Bus h Adm i nistration’s pos iti on on “ p r incip al activi ty.” U
. S. De p ’t ofLabor, A dm i ni str ato r’ s Inter preta ti on N o. 20 10- 2, 2010 W L 24681 95 ( J une 16, 20 10)
. S uch osci l l ati on i s a norm al ph en om en on of A m erican p oli tics. D em ocrats a re f r i e n d l i e r t o u n i o n s th a n R e p u b l i c a n s a r e , th o u g h we18 N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866

c an n otse e h ow a d ec isio n in f a v o r o fth e p lain tiffs in th i s c a s e wo ul d he l p un i o ns . ( No un i o n i s a pa r ty to th is c as e o r an am icu s c u ria e.) N at u r a lly th e D ep ar tm en t o f L ab or d oe s n otac kn ow led ge th at its m ot ive in s w itc h in g s id es w as p olit ic a l; th at wo u l d b e a c r a s s a d mi s s i o n i n a b r i e f o r i n o r al a r g um en t, a nd un l i k ely t o c ar r y w eightwi ththe j udg es . The Dep ar tm ent say s i nstea d that i t i s ri ght as a m at te r of l aw a nd tha t the p o si ti o n the De par tmentt o o ki n the Bus h y ea r s i s wro ng ; i t adds thats i nc e i t en f o r ce s th e Fa ir L ab or Sta n d a r d s A c t it s (c u rre n t) p os itio n sh ou ld car ryweight with us. But al l the De p artm ent doe s t o d em o n st ra te th e “ rig h tn es s” of its cu rre n t p os itio n is to echo the pl ai nti ff s’ ar gum ents. N owh er e in the Departm ent’ s br i efi s there a re fer ence to any insti tutio n al knowle dge o fl aborm ar ke ts posse sse d by the Departm en t’s st aff

— o r t o a ny th i ngi nde ed to whi chthe parti es m i ght no t hav e com p l ete acc ess

— th atmight he l p the c o ur t to de cid e th e ca se s en sibl y ; a nd a t th e or alar gum ent the Departm ent’ s la w yeracknow l edged thi s v oi d . A ll that the Departm ent has co ntributed to our del iber ati ons, ther ef or e, tho ug h i t i s no t qui te no th i ng, i s l et ting us k no w tha t i t di sa g r ee s wi ththe p os itio n ta ke n by th e B u sh D ep ar tm en t o f L ab or ; for if i t w er e s i l e nt, fr o m whi c h o ne mi g hti nfe r tha ti ta g re ed w i th thatposi ti on, i t would be i nvi ti ng U.S
. S tee l to ar gue that the Departm ent o fLaborhad bee n consi ste nt, atl ea sts i nc e 20 01 , a nd thus a cr o ss Adm i ni st r at i o ns co nt r o l l ed byoppo si te po l i ti ca l pa r ti es , i n r ej ec ting th e pl aint i ff s’ po si ti o n.N os. 10

- 1821 , 10

- 1866 19 I t woul d b e a co ns i der able par ado x i fb efo r e 20 01 the pla i nti ff s w oul d win because the Pres i dent w as a D em oc ra t, be tw ee n 20 01 an d 20 09 t h e d efe n d an t w ou ld w in be ca us e th e Pr es i den t was a Re p ubl i ca n, a nd i n 2 01 2 th e pl aint i ffs w o ul d wi n b ec au se the Pr es i den t i s ag ain a D em oc ra t. T h at w ou ld m ak e a tra ve st y of t h e p rin c ip le o fde fer en ce t o i nt er pr et at i o ns o fs ta tu te s bythe ag en c ies res p on sib le for en for c in g t h em , IN S v
. Car dozaFonseca , 48 0 U.S
. 42 1, 44 6 n. 30 ( 1987 ) , since that pri nci ple i s ba sed o n a b elie fei therthatag enci es have us eful know ledge that c a n a id a cou rt or that th ey are del eg at es o fCo ng r es s ch ar g ed wi thi nt er pr et i nga nd applying the i r or gani c st atute s co nsi ste ntl y with l egi sl ati ve pu rpos e. W e a re not s urpri sed to di sco verthat c o u r t s o fa p p e a l s th a th a v e r e a c h e d v a r i e d c o n c l u s i o ns o n th e i s s u e s pr e s e n t e d b y th i s a p p e a l h a v e c o me toge th eri n s pur ni ng, a s J udg e W i l k i ns o n h as puti t, “ th e gyr ati ng ag ency l ett er s o n the subj ect. ” S ep u l v e da v
. A ll en Fam ily Food s, Inc. , sup ra , 59 1 F
. 3d at 216 n. 3; se e al so Sal azarv. But t e r b al l, LL C, sup ra , 64 4 F
. 3d at 11 39; Fran k lin v
. Ke l l ogg Co. , sup ra , 619 F.3d at61 2-1 4; A lva rez v. IBP , Inc. , sup ra , 33 9 F .3d at90 5 n . 9; con tr a, Ande rs on v. C agle’s, Inc. , sup ra , 48 8 F
. 3d at 956- 57. W e r eso l ve the s peci fi c i ssue that w e hav e be en as ked to re s o lv e in th is int erlocuto ry ap p eal i n favor of U

. S. S te el

. On th e ba si s of th atr es o l ut i o n, the s ui t ha s no m er i t a nd sho uld be di sm i sse d by the di str i ct c ourt
.

5- 8- 12