Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-417_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 18

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

(perhaps  a  diver’s  suit  and  tank)  the  entire  period  would 
not  qualify  as  “time  spent  in  changing  clothes”  under 
§203(o), even if some clothes items were donned and doffed 
as  well.  But  if  the  vast  majority  of  the  time  is  spent  in
donning  and  doffing  “clothes”  as  we  have  defined  that
term,  the  entire  period  qualifies,  and  the  time  spent  put-
ting on and off other items need not be subtracted.

In  the  present  case,  the  District  Court  stated  that  “the
time  expended  by  each  employee  donning  and  doffing” 
safety  glasses  and  earplugs  “is  minimal,”  2009  WL 
3430222, *6, a conclusion with which the Seventh Circuit 
agreed, 678 F. 3d, at 593.  As for  respirators, the District
Court stated that they “are kept and put on as needed at 
job  locations,”  2009  WL  3430222,  *2,  which  would  render 
the  time  spent  donning  and  doffing  them  part  of  an  em-
ployee’s  normal  workday  and  thus  beyond  the  scope  of 
§203(o).  The  Seventh  Circuit  did  not  address  respirators 
at  all,  and  we  are  not  inclined  to  disturb  the  District 
Court’s factual conclusion. 

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. 

* 

* 

* 

It is so ordered.