In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

May 28, 2014

Before

 DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

 RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

 JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

 FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

 MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

 ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

 ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

 DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

 JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

 DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 13-2115

ROCHELLE MITCHELL, et al.,

individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JCG INDUSTRIES, INC., and

KOCH FOODS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________
2 No. 13-2115

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 10 C 6847 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.

____________________

O R D E R

On April 1, 2014, plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, and on April 17, 2014, defendants-appellees filed an answer to the petition. A vote of the active 

members of the court on whether to grant rehearing en banc was 

requested and a majority of the judges have voted to deny the petition.1

The petition is therefore DENIED.

 1 Chief Judge Wood, Judge Rovner, Judge Williams and Judge Hamilton 

voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc.
No. 13-2115 3

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, with whom WOOD, Chief Judge, 

and ROVNER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges join, dissenting

from denial of rehearing en banc. This is an important case 

with far-reaching implications for, among others, workers 

who are being paid minimum wage or close to it. As set forth 

in Chief Judge Wood’s well-written dissent and also in the 

petition for rehearing, this case should have been heard en 

banc because the majority opinion calls into question the application of the “continuous workday” doctrine of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), erroneously applies de minimis analysis to the FLSA in contravention of Supreme Court 

precedent, and improperly applies the summary judgment 

standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Under the FLSA, an employer and employee may collectively bargain to make non-compensable “any time spent in 

changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each 

workday ...” 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). Congress adopted section 

203(o) with full knowledge of the then-existing Department 

of Labor definition of “workday” known as the “continuous 

workday” rule or doctrine—which states that the workday 

is, “in general, the period between the commencement and 

completion on the same workday of an employee’s principal 

activity or activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 790.6(b); see Sandifer v. U.S. 

Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870, 875-76 (2014) (describing history of 

FLSA). Applying reasoning that I believe contravenes the 

plain language of both the FLSA and the Department of Labor’s definition, the majority finds that the employees of the 

chicken processing plant work not one eight-hour day, but 

two four-hour workdays broken up by a thirty-minute lunch 

break. Mitchell v. JCG Indus., Inc., 745 F.3d 837, 840 (7th Cir. 

2014). Under the majority’s approach, any time spent doffing 

clothes during the start of the lunch break is actually at the 
4 No. 13-2115

end of the first four-hour workday, and any time donning 

clothes at the end of the lunch break is actually at the beginning of the employees’ second four-hour workday, and so 

the donning and doffing during the mid-day lunch break is 

subject to the collective bargaining agreement under § 

203(o). Id. The day can be broken up that way, the majority 

states, because the employees have an unpaid lunch break 

and that non-compensable period must act as a break between the first workday and the second workday. Id. The 

Department of Labor’s “general” definition of a continuous 

workday does not apply here, the majority continues, because this case presents a “compelling reason to recognize an 

exception” to the continuous workday doctrine, namely that 

there are actually two four-hour workdays. Id.

Setting aside the specific facts of this case, I have serious 

concerns about what effect the majority’s analysis will have 

on the “continuous workday” doctrine going forward. Under the doctrine, workers must be compensated for time they 

spend doing what might otherwise be non-compensable activities if those activities occur during the “period between 

commencement and completion on the same workday of an 

employee’s principal activity or activities,” subject to FLSA 

carve outs. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 29 (U.S. 2005)

(quoting 29 C.F.R. § 790.6(b)). Normally, an employee who 

commences her first principal activity at 8 a.m., takes a halfhour lunch break from 12-12:30, and completes her principal 

activity at 4:30 p.m., has worked one continuous workday (8 

a.m. – 4:30 p.m.). Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc., 664 F.3d 169, 

174 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting “[w]ork activities that Kellar performed after [her first integral and indispensable work activities] would be covered by the ‘continuous workday rule’” 

and quoting 29 C.F.R. § 790.6); see also Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 
No. 13-2115 5

F.3d 894, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting the workday is “continuous, not the sum of discrete periods”), aff’d by IBP, Inc., 546 

U.S. at 29. She must be compensated for all of that period, 

except for the bona fide lunch break. 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 (excluding bona fide lunch breaks from “worktime”). However, 

based on the majority’s analysis, that same employee now 

has worked two continuous workdays (8 a.m. – 12 p.m. and 

12:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.), twice commenced her principal activities, and twice completed her principal activities, all between sunrise and sunset. Mitchell, 745 F.3d at 840. In other 

words, whereas before the majority’s opinion the employee 

only had one “beginning [and] end” of the workday that is 

subject to collective bargaining, now that same employee has 

two. 29 C.F.R. § 790.6(b). I have great concern that the majority’s reasoning will spell the end of the “continuous workday” doctrine, which courts around this circuit have relied 

upon in deciding cases, and will allow employers to negotiate away otherwise compensable time. See, e.g., Harris v. Reliable Reports Inc., No. 13-cv-210, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31223, 

at *13-14 (N.D. Ind. March 10, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss based on continuous workday doctrine); Espenscheid v. 

Directstat USA, LLC, No. 09-cv-625, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

154706, at ** 68-70 (W.D. Wis. April 11, 2011) (denying summary judgment on continuous workday FLSA claim). Congress has spoken and decided what should or should not be 

subject to collective bargaining: those periods donning and 

doffing at the “beginning or end of each” continuous workday are subject to collective bargaining; those periods during 

the continuous workday are not. 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). The majority’s fracturing of the workday now calls into question the 

very existence of the “continuous workday” doctrine, since 

there is nothing continuous about the workday as the major-
6 No. 13-2115

ity describes it. Indeed, this dubious rationale has already 

been questioned by one federal court. Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, 

Inc., 09-cv-00125, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50528, *46 (M.D. 

Tenn. April 10, 2014) (“Departing radically from the conventional understanding of ‘workday’—in effect since 1947 and 

approved by the Supreme Court in 2005—Mitchell found 

that the period before a meal break was the end of one 

‘workday’ and the period after a meal break was the start of 

another.”); see also Castaneda v. JBS USA, LLC, No. 08-cv01833, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62390, **9-10 (D. Colo. May 6, 

2014) (rejecting idea of “two four-hour work days” and 

therefore not applying 203(o)). 

Moreover, by carving out an “exception” to the “general” 

definition propounded by the Department of Labor, the majority has created an exception to what had previously been 

the “continuous workday” doctrine’s rule, but does nothing 

to explain when this exception should be applied and when 

it should not. Mitchell, 745 F.3d at 840. Going forward, district courts, employers and employees are likely to be confused as to when a day is continuous and when it is not. 

When is a seemingly eight-hour workday actually two fourhour workdays, or four two-hour workdays, or eight onehour workdays? What makes this case the “exception” to the 

“general” definition, but another case not the “exception”? 

This “exception” is likely to create confusion in both the administration of law—since district courts are now faced with 

the Supreme Court precedent adopting the “continuous 

workday” doctrine, IBP, Inc., 546 U.S. at 29, and precedent by 

our court rejecting its application—and the collective bargaining process. See, e.g., Abadeer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

50528, at *46 n.4 (discussing Mitchell and stating “[t]his newly discovered ‘exception,’ then, presumably applies to all un-
No. 13-2115 7

ionized shift work that includes a meal break, which is to say 

nearly all unionized shift work.”). Since the application of 

the “continuous workday” doctrine involves “a question of 

exceptional importance” and the majority’s decision calls into question the “uniformity of the court’s decisions”—

specifically when the “exception” should apply—I believe 

this case should have been heard en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 

35(a). 

Second, the majority holds that its conclusion is supported, in the alternative, by the fact that such donning and doffing is de minimis and therefore non-compensable. Mitchell, 

745 F.3d at 841-843. Yet, as Chief Judge Wood stated in her 

dissent, as Appellant’s petition for rehearing points out, and 

as the majority itself notes, the Supreme Court has explicitly 

rejected the idea that donning and doffing “on the whole” 

can be subject to a de minimis analysis. As the Supreme Court 

stated, 203(o) is “all about trifles – the relatively insignificant 

periods of time in which employees wash up and put on various items of clothing needed for their jobs.” Sandifer, 134 S. 

Ct. at 880 (emphasis in original). The majority here accepts 

this statement, but nonetheless applies the de minimis doctrine because it believes the Supreme Court tacitly approved 

such application. Mitchell, 745 F.3d at 841-843. However, this 

is a misreading of Sandifer. In that case, the employees argued that twelve items of clothing were donned and doffed 

and such time was compensable. Sandifer, 134 S. Ct. at 879. 

The Supreme Court ultimately found that three of the items 

were not actually clothing. Id. at 880. Rather than figure out 

which portion of the donning and doffing time was compensable and which was not, the Supreme Court wrote off the 

time putting on and taking off the non-clothing items so 

long as the entire period “on the whole” was “fairly character-
8 No. 13-2115

ized as ‘time spent in changing clothes or washing.’” Id. at 

881 (emphasis in original) (quoting § 203(o)). In other words, 

where there is an intermingling between clothes and nonclothes item during the donning and doffing period, the 

court need not be a “time study professional[]” and determine which portion relates to clothing and which does not; 

so long as the period “on the whole” can be characterized as 

donning and doffing non-clothes, it is compensable. Id. at 

880. However, this does not change the Supreme Court’s 

statement that the entire donning and doffing period cannot 

be written off as de minimis since, as the Court stated, 203(o) 

is all about such “trifles.” Id. Yet that is exactly what the majority does, writing off the entire period as de minimis. Mitchell, 745 F.3d at 843. I am concerned that a district court faced 

with a donning and doffing case will not know whether it 

should apply the de minimis standard and follow the majority’s opinion, or whether it should follow the Supreme 

Court’s precedent. This conflicting precedent creates confusion and will disrupt the “uniformity of the court’s decisions,” and for that reason, I believe this case should have 

been heard en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). 

Finally, I believe the majority misapplied the Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 56 summary judgment standard and did 

not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Chaib v. Indiana, 744 F.3d 974, 981 (7th Cir. 

2014). Rather, the majority discounted an affidavit presented 

by Appellant that it took her 5-6 minutes to doff (and presumably) the same 5-6 minutes to don the clothing during 

the lunch break. See November 1, 2012 Affidavit of Rochell 

Mitchell. The majority found the employees’ estimate to be 

“inconceivable.” Mitchell, 745 F.3d at 841. Taken in the light 

most favorable to the employees, those 10-12 minutes daily
No. 13-2115 9

add up to 50-60 minutes per week. Even if de minimis analysis were appropriate here, that is not de minimis time. By explicitly rejecting Appellant’s affidavit and accepting the employer's time estimation (and confirming that with a court 

staff “experiment”), the majority ignored the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the employees and therefore did not 

conduct the proper Rule 56 analysis. In the light most favorable to Appellant, how long it took to don and doff was an 

issue of fact that should have been decided by a jury. 

For the foregoing reasons, I dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. 

POSNER, Circuit Judge, concurring in denial of rehearing 

en banc. Published opinions dissenting from denials of rehearing en banc are rare; published opinions concurring in 

denials of rehearing en banc are virtually unheard of. But 

this case merits such an opinion in view of assertions and 

omissions in the opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc that relate both to the appropriateness of the 

case for rehearing by the full court and to the grounds of the 

panel’s decision.

Workers in a poultry processing plant in Chicago, who 

are represented by a union that has a collective bargaining 

agreement with their employer, stand next to a conveyor belt 

and perform various operations, such as deboning, on the 

chicken carcasses conveyed by the belt. Before beginning 

work in the morning the workers put on a sterilized jacket, 

plastic apron, cut-resistant gloves, plastic sleeves, earplugs, 

and a hairnet. They are required to remove this sanitary 
10 No. 13-2115

gear, except for the earplugs and hairnet at the start of their 

half-hour lunch break, and put it back on before returning to 

work. The issue is whether the time spent in changing during the lunch break is worktime that must be compensated. 

The panel assigned to this case ruled that the changing time 

did not have to be compensated. The full court has declined 

by a split vote to hear the case en banc, precipitating the dissenting opinion that is the focus of my discussion.

It should go without saying that mere disagreement with 

a decision by a panel of the court is not a sufficient ground 

for rehearing en banc. Otherwise every case in which the 

panel was divided could provoke a petition for rehearing en 

banc and a call by the dissenting judge for a vote on whether 

to rehear the case en banc. Unremarked by the dissent is that 

there are standards for granting rehearing en banc, and for 

obvious reasons they do not include: “I disagree with the 

panel majority.” The Seventh Circuit’s Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals states that “‘an en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless 

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain 

uniformity of the court’s decision, or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.’ Fed. R. App. P. 

35(a).” The handbook goes on to state that "rehearings en 

banc are designed to address issues that affect the integrity 

of the circuit’s law (intra-circuit conflicts) and the development of the law (questions of exceptional importance)." And 

there is more: Rule 35(b)(1) requires a petition for rehearing 

en banc to “begin with a statement that either: (A) the panel 

decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and 

consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to se-
No. 13-2115 11

cure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (B) 

the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for 

example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a 

question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on 

which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have 

addressed the issue.” The Advisory Committee’s Note to 

Rule 35 also stresses intercircuit conflict as a basis for rehearing en banc.

None of these criteria for rehearing en banc is satisfied in 

this case or even mentioned by the dissent. Far from there 

being either an intracircuit or an intercircuit conflict, a reversal of the panel decision would create a circuit split with the 

only other appellate decision to deal with the same issue: 

Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., 591 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 

2009). Reversal also would create deep tensions with our decision in Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 678 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 

2012), and with the Supreme Court’s decision affirming it 

unanimously, 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014). And rather than the type 

of dispute between the parties to this case being exceptionally troublesome, such disputes can be and usually are resolved in collective bargaining negotiations without generating litigation. A reversal might disrupt labor relations in a 

variety of industries, besides poultry processing, by allowing 

a class action suit to override arrangements agreed upon in 

collective bargaining agreements. That would be to forget 

Congress’s reasons for amending the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (under which this suit was brought) in 1947: “Congress 

finds that the Fair Labor Standards Act ... has been interpreted judicially in disregard of long-established customs, 

practices, and contracts between employers and employees,
12 No. 13-2115

thereby creating wholly unexpected liabilities, immense in 

amount and retroactive in operation, upon employers.” 

29 U.S.C. § 251. We would be upending long-standing practices of the Illinois Department of Labor as well.

A Westlaw search of Mitchell v. JCG Industries, Inc., 745 

F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2014) (the panel decision), reveals three citations to the decision, all of which distinguish it from the 

citing cases. Castaneda v. JBS USA, LLC, 2014 WL 1796707, at 

*3 (D. Colo. May 6, 2014); Abadeer v Tyson Foods, Inc., 2014 

WL 1404836, at *12–13 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 10, 2014); Jones v. C 

& D Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 1233239, at *7 n. 5 (S.D. Ind. 

Mar. 25, 2014). A Google search reveals a number of references to the panel decision (many critical of the “experiment” conducted by court staff in that case regarding the 

time it takes to don and doff the sanitary gear that poultry 

workers are required to wear) but nothing to suggest that 

the decision involves an issue of general importance. A 

Google search of “donning and doffing” (and some variant

terms suggested at the bottom of the first Google page) revealed only one reference to donning and doffing in the 

poultry processing industry and nothing to suggest a concern with donning and doffing at meal breaks.

In considering whether a case is appropriate for rehearing en banc, a judge will generally look first at the grounds 

suggested in the petition. The petition in this case lists two 

issues that the class action lawyers who drafted it deem worthy of en banc consideration: “1. Does the continuous workday doctrine have an exception that applies to the facts of 

our case? And if so, what is the exception? 2. Should the 

Court ignore the opinion of the Illinois Attorney General regarding an interpretation of an Illinois regulation on hours
No. 13-2115 13

worked, and instead rely upon an unpublished Illinois decision? Or should the matter be certified to the Illinois Supreme Court?” The dissent does not seek en banc rehearing 

to resolve the second question. The first is fact-bound. No 

one can deny that there are exceptions to the continuous 

workday rule. The question is whether the poultry processing donning/doffing time might be one. So far as appears, that is a question of limited significance.

The petition for rehearing is sloppy. Apart from numerous mistakes, such as its assertion that the poultry workers 

are minimum wage employees (as pointed out in the appellees’ response, they are not—they are paid $9; the Illinois 

minimum wage is $8.25), the main arguments in the petition 

were made neither in the district court, nor in this court 

when the case was briefed and argued to the panel. So there 

is an ambush element.

The dissent doesn’t mention collective bargaining. That 

is a critical omission. The income of the poultry processing 

workers will be determined by collective bargaining, not by 

our decision. Their income depends on their union’s bargaining power vis-à-vis the employer. If any part of the meal 

break is considered compensable time (despite the exemption, which I discuss below, of bona fide meal breaks--and 

the plaintiffs don’t argue that the meal breaks in this case are 

not bona fide), the employer can cut the total number of 

hours of work to avoid having to pay overtime, or indeed 

can eliminate meal breaks. For although Illinois law requires 

meal breaks for shifts of 7.5 hours or more, the breaks need 

not exceed 20 minutes, and the requirement does not apply 

to workers, such as the workers in this case, who are subject

to a collective bargaining agreement. 820 ILCS 140/3. The 
14 No. 13-2115

employer, if forced to compensate for time spent in doffing 

and donning sanitary gear during meal breaks, could reduce 

the wage to the minimum wage, or take other measures designed to make sure that the workers have no greater income

than they now have, for that is the maximum income that 

their union have been able to extract in collective bargaining

negotiations. Only class counsel would benefit from a judgment or settlement. And by the way, meal breaks are a 

common subject of collective bargaining (see Google references to “Collective Bargaining Over Meal Breaks”); the validity of those agreements could be placed in doubt by a reversal of the panel decision. As the appellees’ response to the 

petition for rehearing points out, “it would be absurd to allow CBAs [collective bargaining agreements] to exclude 

donning and doffing time when arriving at and leaving the 

work site, but prohibit those same CBAs from doing the same

thing as to the same activity by the same employees at the beginning and end of the lunch break” (emphases in original). 

The dissent does not respond to this point.

Instead it accuses the panel decision of rejecting the concept of the “continuous workday.” It says that “Congress has 

spoken and decided what should or should not be subject to 

collective bargaining: those periods donning and doffing at 

the ‘beginning or end of each’ continuous workday are subject to collective bargaining; those periods during the continuous workday are not. 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). The majority’s

fracturing of the workday now calls into question the very 

existence of the ‘continuous workday’ doctrine, since there is 

nothing continuous about the workday as the majority de-
No. 13-2115 15

scribes it.” The dissent cites two district court cases that accept the doctrine. Of course they accept the doctrine, as does 

the panel decision. It is announced in a Department of Labor 

regulation in force since 1947 and accepted as valid, 29 

C.F.R. § 790.6(b); it is repeated in the Supreme Court’s decision in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 29 (2005), and numerous other decisions besides the two district court cases cited 

by the dissent. But the dissent misses a vital point: the term 

“workday” means “in general, the period between the commencement and completion on the same workday of an employee’s principal activity or activities.” The phrase that I’ve 

italicized, which is from the regulation and is paraphrased 

by the Supreme Court as “generally” in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 

supra, 546 U.S. at 29, allows for exceptions from the continuity requirement. “Workday” needn’t always mean the entire

interval between the worker’s arrival at work at the beginning of the day and his departure for home at the end of the 

day. Suppose a family hires a nanny to come to its home at 7 

a.m. and remain till 9 a.m., to get the kids ready for school; 

and to return at 3 p.m. and remain till 8 p.m. in order to take 

care of them after school and feed them and put them to bed. 

Her workday is not 13 hours (7 a.m. to 8 p.m.), but rather 7 

hours (7 to 9 and 3 to 8). Similarly, the poultry workers in 

this case work an 8 hour day, not an 81⁄2 hour day. The lunch 

break breaks up their workday.

The dissent takes a “plain language” approach to the 

workday regulation, but fails to note that “in general” is part 

of that plain language, and has to be given meaning. In recognizing an exception, the panel decision was not violating 

the regulation.
16 No. 13-2115

The workday issue is only one of three grounds of the 

panel decision. Another—and the most straightforward—is 

that bona fide meal breaks are excluded from work time. 29 

C.F.R. § 785.19; Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., supra, 

591 F.3d at 217 n. 4 (“lastly, the employees seek compensation for the time they spend during their lunch breaks donning and doffing a few items, washing, and walking to and 

from the cafeteria. This time is non-compensable, however, 

because it is part of a bona fide meal period”). The regulation I just cited states that a meal break ceases to be “bona 

fide” when “an office employee who is required to eat at his 

desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating.” The poultry workers in our 

case do not eat while working. It is true that section 203(o) 

makes no reference to lunch breaks, but the reason is that the 

Fair Labor Standards Act does not require lunch breaks, so 

naturally doesn’t specify exclusion of clothes-changing time 

during such breaks.

So clear is this ground for rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim 

that if we were to grant rehearing en banc and reverse, the 

district court would have no choice but to reinstate its judgment.

The third alternative ground for affirming the district 

court is what the panel decision called the “de minimis” character of the doffing and donning, a term for which the Supreme Court in the Sandifer opinion substituted “minimal” 

while affirming our decision, notwithstanding the disagreement over nomenclature—a trivial disagreement. I have difficulty understanding the dissent’s discussion of the issue. 

The dissent states that in Sandifer
No. 13-2115 17

the employees argued that twelve items of clothing 

were donned and doffed and such time was compensable. The Supreme Court ultimately found that three 

of the items were not actually clothing. Rather than 

figure out which portion of the donning and doffing 

time was compensable and which was not, the Supreme Court wrote off the time putting on and taking 

off the non-clothing items so long as the entire period 

“on the whole” was fairly characterized as “time spent 

in changing clothes or washing” (emphasis in original). In other words, where there is an intermingling 

between clothes and nonclothes item[s] during the 

donning and doffing period, the court need not be a 

“time study professional[]” and determine which portion relates to clothing and which does not; so long as 

the period “on the whole” can be characterized as 

donning and doffing non-clothes, it is compensable. 

However, this does not change the Supreme Court’s 

statement that the entire donning and doffing period 

cannot be written off as de minimis since, as the Court 

stated, 203(o) is all about such “trifles.” Yet that is exactly what the majority does, writing off the entire period as de minimis. [Emphasis in original; citations 

omitted.]

I understand neither the reference to “trifles” in the Supreme Court’s opinion nor the use made of the term in the 

dissent from our denial of rehearing en banc. Section 203(o) 

allowed the parties in Sandifer to exclude donning and doffing time from compensable time but only donning and doffing of clothing. The workers in Sandifer, who were steelworkers, were required to don and doff not only clothing 

but certain protective equipment, such as a helmet and gog-
18 No. 13-2115

gles. Such equipment is not clothing, and so the time taken 

in donning and doffing would be—one might have 

thought—compensable time. But because there were very 

few protective items in comparison to the amount of work 

clothes that the steelworkers were required to wear, the 

Court decided that the time required to don and doff the 

protective equipment could be ignored—a result consistent 

with what the panel ruled in the present case. Donning and 

doffing protective equipment just wasn’t a big deal; in this 

case donning and doffing sanitary gear during the lunch 

break is likewise not a big deal.

A practical point important both in Sandifer and the present case, but ignored in the dissent, is that it is infeasible to 

determine the time it takes to doff and don, because every 

worker will don and doff at a different rate unless monitored 

by supervisors, which would be a cost borne ultimately by 

the workers. Such monitoring would also be obnoxious—

imagine supervisors shouting “you have 20 seconds to finish 

putting on the last item of your sanitary gear!”

One point remains to be considered, as it figures not only 

in the petition for rehearing en banc and in the dissent from 

the denial of rehearing en banc but also in some of the online 

commentary on the panel decision. The petition denounces 

the experiment conducted by “unidentified members of the 

judiciary” (these villains are my law clerks and I), which it 

states violates due process and the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. As the panel decision explains, the information 

produced by the experiment was not “evidence,” was not 

“appellate factfinding,” but was the fruits of curiosity regarding the appellants’ implausible (in fact unbelievable) 

contention that it takes 15 minutes to don a few items of pro-
No. 13-2115 19

tective clothing. Although called “changing clothes,” the 

donning and doffing by these poultry workers involve not 

changing clothes but just putting some items of protective 

clothing, like an apron and a hair net, on top of one’s street 

clothes, and removing the same items. No way can that take 

15 minutes.

We are required to affirm a grant of summary judgment 

when “no reasonable jury” would have credited the appellants’ contentions. Nunez v. BNSF Railway Co., 730 F.3d 681, 

685 (7th Cir. 2013). The panel considered this the situation 

with regard to the plaintiff’s contentions about the time required for donning and doffing. The plaintiffs must agree, 

because they change their allegations in the petition for rehearing, arguing for the first time that they have to store the 

protective clothing for reuse, travel to a sink, and wait in line 

to wash. In the district court the only act they claimed took 

10 to 15 minutes was putting on the sanitary gear (which 

they call, misleadingly in light of Sandifer, “protective 

equipment’). “It typically took [they alleged in a Statement 

of Additional Fact] ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes to properly don the protective equipment.” Not taking off and putting 

on—just putting on. As the lead plaintiff, Rochell Mitchel, 

stated in an affidavit attached to her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, “once I receive the 

PPE [‘personal protective equipment’—what I’ve been talking about] it takes approximately 10-15 minutes to put all of 

the gear on properly” (“put on,” not “put on and take off”). 

The complaint makes no mention of “instrument washing” 

or “walking time” and the district judge noted that the first 

mention of such claims was in a footnote in the plaintiffs’ 

response to summary judgment—and was thus forfeited (a 

critical point overlooked by the dissent). Apparently the 
20 No. 13-2115

plaintiffs accepted his ruling, because they didn’t challenge 

it in their appeal briefs. Now they concede (maybe without 

realizing this) that no, those acts alone don’t add up to 10 to 

15 minutes. It’s those acts plus additional ones that do. 

The dissent quotes plaintiff Mitchell’s claim that it takes 

her “5–6 minutes” to walk to lunch and doff her gear. That 

statement is doubly problematic: there is no claim that walking time needs to be compensated, and Mitchell does not say 

how much of the alleged 5 to 6 minutes is spent walking. She 

says “it took ... (presumably) the same 5–6 minutes to don 

the clothing during the lunch break.” But remember that her 

affidavit stated that it took her 10–15 minutes to put on the 

gear at the start of the day. She does not explain why it 

should take so much less time during the lunch break. Maybe a sympathetic jury would brush aside these contractions, 

but no reasonable jury could believe her testimony, and that is 

the standard. 

The district judge based his summary judgment decision 

on the factual claims made by the parties, including the obviously fantastic claim (now implicitly conceded to be false) 

that donning alone takes 15 minutes. Further confusing the 

issue, the petition for rehearing states that doffing and donning “indisputably consumes between ... two to over 15 

minutes” (emphasis added)—a concession that underscores 

the infeasibility of actually measuring these times for purposes of determining how much additional wages the workers are entitled to under the petitioners’ theory. Will some 

workers get 2 minutes of overtime pay a day and others 20 

(remember “over 15 minutes”)? Who will keep track of these 

times? How will dawdling be monitored and prevented?
No. 13-2115 21

As the appellees point out, the statement in the petition 

for rehearing that “over 50 percent of the entire meal break” 

is spent in changing clothes and washing is not only ridiculous and unsupported by any citations to the record, but if 

true would mean that the meal break was not bona fide. In 

that event the employees would be entitled to compensation 

for the entire break, not just the time taken in changing and 

washing—and that is not argued. Mitchell attested that it 

took her only five or six minutes to walk from her work station to the changing area and remove her protective clothing. And walking and washing time are not even part of the 

appellants’ claim.

I am puzzled finally by the dissent’s remark that “how 

long it took to don and doff was an issue of fact that should 

have been decided by a jury.” My puzzle is: how is such a 

fact to be determined by a jury? Suppose one worker testifies 

(as per Mitchell’s affidavit) that it takes 10 to 15 minutes to 

don and doff, and another (one aligned with management, 

for remember that the exclusion of donning and doffing time 

from compensable time was by agreement between union 

and management) testifies it takes 2 minutes. How is a jury 

to decide between them? Probably the most accurate way to 

resolve the dispute would be, on the model of the criticized 

experiment by court staff, to videotape workers doffing and 

donning. The problem is that the workers aligned with the 

plaintiffs would dawdle, and the workers aligned with management would practice doffing and donning until they 

broke the speed record. What would the jury do? This is 

somewhat to the side of the issue of the case, but illustrates 

the important point that determining facts in a litigation can 

be devilishly difficult if one thinks accuracy important.