Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-417_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

SANDIFER v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. 

Opinion of the Court 

C. Application 
Applying  the  foregoing  principles  to  the  facts  of  this
case,  we  hold  that  petitioners’  donning  and  doffing  of  the
protective  gear  at  issue  qualifies  as  “changing  clothes” 
within the meaning of §203(o).

Petitioners have pointed to 12 particular items: a flame-
retardant  jacket,  pair  of  pants,  and  hood;  a  hardhat;  a
snood;  wristlets;  work  gloves;  leggings;  metatarsal  boots; 
safety  glasses;  earplugs;  and  a  respirator.  The  first  nine 
clearly fit within the interpretation of “clothes” elaborated 
above: they are both designed and used to cover the body
and  are  commonly  regarded  as  articles  of  dress.    That 
proposition  is  obvious  with  respect  to  the  jacket,  pants, 
hood,  and  gloves.  The  hardhat  is  simply  a  type  of  hat.
The snood is basically a hood that also covers the neck and 
upper shoulder area; on the ski slopes, one might call it a 
“balaclava.”  The  wristlets  are  essentially  detached  shirt-
sleeves.  The leggings look much like traditional legwarm-
ers,  but  with  straps.  And  the  metatarsal  boots—more 
commonly  known  as  “steel-toed”  boots—are  just  a  special 
kind of shoe. 

The  remaining  three  items,  by  contrast,  do  not  satisfy
our standard.  Whereas glasses and earplugs may have  a 
covering function, we do not believe that they are commonly 
regarded  as  articles  of  dress.    And  a  respirator  obviously
falls  short  on  both  grounds.  The  question  is whether  the 
time devoted to the putting on and off of these items must
be deducted from the noncompensable time.  If so, federal 
judges  must  be  assigned  the  task  of  separating  the 
minutes  spent  clothes-changing  and  washing  from  the 
minutes  devoted  to  other  activities  during  the  period  in 
question.

Some Courts of Appeals, including the Court of Appeals 
in this case, have sought to avoid, or at least mitigate, this
difficulty  by  invoking  the  doctrine  de  minimis  non  curat 
lex  (the  law  does  not  take  account  of  trifles).    This,  they