Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-417_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  571 U. S. ____ (2014) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

hold,  enables  them  to  declare  noncompensable  a  few
minutes  actually  spent  on  something  other  than  clothes-
changing—to wit, donning and doffing non-clothes items.

Although the roots of the de minimis doctrine stretch to 
ancient  soil,  its  application  in  the  present  context  began 
with  Anderson.  There,  the  Court  declared  that  because 
“[s]plit-second absurdities are not justified by the actuali-
ties  of  working  conditions  or  by  the  policy  of  the  Fair 
Labor  Standards  Act,”  such  “trifles”  as  “a  few  seconds  or 
minutes  of  work  beyond  the  scheduled  working  hours”
may be “disregarded.”  328 U. S., at 692.  “We [thus] do not 
. . . preclude the application of a de minimis rule.”  Ibid. 

We  doubt  that  the  de  minimis  doctrine  can  properly  be 
applied to the present case.  To be sure, Anderson included 
“putting on aprons and overalls” and “removing shirts” as 
activities to which “it is appropriate to apply a de minimis 
doctrine.”  Id.,  at  692–693.    It  said  that,  however,  in  the 
context of  determining what  preliminary activities had to
be counted as part of the gross workweek under §207(a) of
 A  de  minimis  doctrine 
the  Fair  Labor  Standards  Act.8
does  not  fit  comfortably  within  the  statute  at  issue  here, 
which,  it  can  fairly  be  said,  is  all  about  trifles—the  rela-
tively  insignificant  periods  of  time  in  which  employees
wash  up  and  put  on  various  items  of  clothing  needed  for 
their jobs.  Or to put it in the context of the present case, 
there  is  no  more  reason  to  disregard  the  minute  or  so 
necessary  to  put  on  glasses,  earplugs,  and  respirators, 
than  there  is  to  regard  the  minute  or  so  necessary  to  put 
on  a  snood.    If  the  statute  in  question  requires  courts  to 

—————— 

8 We  note,  moreover,  that  even  in  that  context,  the  current  regula-
tions  of  the  Labor  Department  apply  a  stricter  de  minimis  standard 
than  Anderson  expressed.  They  specify  that  “[a]n  employer  may  not 
arbitrarily fail to count as hours worked any part, however small, of the
employee’s  fixed  or  regular  working  time  or  practically  ascertainable
period  of  time  he  is  regularly  required  to  spend  on  duties  assigned  to 
him.”  29 CFR §785.47.