Opinion ID: 218262
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Donning and Doffing at Beginning and End of Work Shifts

Text: As an initial matter, and contrary to Mountaire's suggestion, we decline to distinguish the employees' protective gear as either specialized or generic. This distinction was not made in Steiner. The work clothes at issue in Steiner were simply described as old but clean work clothes, and the Supreme Court did not characterize the clothes as special. See Steiner, 350 U.S. at 251, 76 S.Ct. 330. Thus, we hold that these terms are not relevant to our integral and indispensable analysis, and we do not classify the employees' protective gear in this manner. To determine whether the employees' acts of donning and doffing at the beginning and the end of their work shifts are integral and indispensable to Mountaire's principal activity, we first consider whether those acts are necessary to the principal work of chicken processing. See Alvarez, 339 F.3d at 902-03. Mountaire does not dispute the district court's finding that the employees are required as a matter of federal law to wear certain protective gear on the production line. These legal requirements are based on regulations concerning sanitation promulgated by the United States Department of Agriculture, and on safety regulations established by OSHA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a); 9 C.F.R. § 416.5. In order to comply with these legal requirements, Mountaire's company policy mandates that the employees don and sanitize certain items before entering the production area. The employees must don bump caps, and hair and beard nets, in order to prevent hair from falling into the chicken products. The employees are required to wear specific types of ear plugs, which vary depending on which section of the plant the employee is located. Also, the employees must don smocks and aprons to prevent food contamination. Clean smocks are so important to chicken processing that Mountaire launders the smocks daily and provides them to the employees free of charge. The employees also are required to sanitize their protective gear by walking through a foot bath and by splashing sanitizing solution on their aprons. Employees who wear gloves must dip their gloves into a sanitizing solution, and employees who are not required to wear gloves must wash their hands. Any Mountaire employee who fails to comply with these company rules is subject to discipline or termination. The district court concluded that certain activities are necessary for chicken processing even though these activities are not required by law or company policy. The district court found that although employees are not required to wear clean gloves, the nature of the work makes this necessary so that the employees can hold the knives safely while handling the blood and fat from the chickens. This factual record amply demonstrates that the donning and doffing of the employees' protective gear at the beginning and end of work shifts is necessary to their work on the production line. The overriding concerns of safety and sanitation plainly mandate this conclusion. Our conclusion that these activities are necessary to chicken processing, however, does not of itself end the inquiry whether these activities are integral and indispensable to that work. Alvarez, 546 U.S. at 40-41, 126 S.Ct. 514. We also must consider whether the record supports a conclusion that the employees' acts of donning and doffing primarily benefit Mountaire. Alvarez, 339 F.3d at 902-03. The district court recognized that the employees' donning and doffing of protective gear at the beginning and end of their work shifts benefits the employees by protecting them from workplace hazards. However, the district court found that these activities primarily benefit Mountaire by protect[ing] the products from contamination, help[ing] keep workers' compensation payments down, keep[ing] missed time to a minimum, and shield[ing] the company from pain and suffering payments. Perez, 610 F.Supp.2d at 518. Based on the considerable factual record before us establishing the importance of the protective gear in ensuring the safety and sanitation of the production line, we conclude that the employees' acts of donning and doffing at the beginning and the end of their work shifts primarily benefit Mountaire. Because these acts of donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and end of the employees' work shifts are necessary to Mountaire's chicken processing and primarily benefit Mountaire, we conclude that these activities are integral and indispensable to chicken processing. We find further support for this conclusion in the Supreme Court's recent discussion of a closely related issue. In Alvarez, the Court held that post-donning and pre-doffing time spent walking between the locker room and the production line in a food processing plant was compensable, because under the continuous workday rule, the compensable workday includes all activities that occur after the beginning of the employee's first principal activity and before the end of the employee's last principal activity. 546 U.S. at 30, 37, 126 S.Ct. 514. Based on this holding, the Court necessarily accepted the conclusion of the courts below that the donning and doffing in that case was integral and indispensable to the principal activity of food processing. See id. at 32, 126 S.Ct. 514. The Court clarified that donning and doffing began and ended the continuous workday because any activity that is `integral and indispensable' to a `principal activity' is itself a `principal activity.' Id. Although the parties in Alvarez did not challenge on appeal the conclusion that donning and doffing protective gear was integral and indispensable to the principal activity of poultry processing, it would be illogical to conclude that the Supreme Court would have held the walking time to be compensable if it entertained serious doubts regarding the compensability of the donning and doffing activities themselves. Accordingly, in our view, it is manifest that the employees' acts of donning and doffing are principal activities that mark the beginning and the end of the workday. Under the continuous workday rule, therefore, the employees are entitled to compensation for those activities and any other activities, such as sanitizing and walking, which occur between the first and last principal activities. See id. at 28, 126 S.Ct. 514. Mountaire argues, nevertheless, that once it changed its company policy to allow employees to take home their smocks, the donning and doffing activities at the beginning and the end of each work shift no longer were compensable as work. In support of its argument, Mountaire relies on a memorandum issued by the Secretary of Labor which, in effect, stated that donning and doffing is not compensable if employees have the option and the ability to change into the required gear at home. See DOL Wage & Hour Adv. Mem. No. 2006-2 (May 31, 2006); see also Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217, 1227-31 (9th Cir.2010). Under the facts of the present case, however, Mountaire's change in company policy does not alter our conclusion. Even if we assume, without deciding, that the Secretary's position on this issue has merit, the district court found that Mountaire's take home policy was illusory. Perez, 610 F.Supp.2d at 519-20. According to the district court, even after the take home policy changed, many employees continued to leave their smocks at the plant. The district court concluded that it was illogical, onerous, and impractical for employees to take their smocks home, because Mountaire provides hampers for dirty smocks and provides clean smocks free of charge. This factual record supports the district court's conclusion that the employees do not have a meaningful option to don and doff their protective gear at home. Moreover, the nature of the employees' jobs, including the need for strict compliance with sanitation measures, necessitates that the employees don and doff their gear at their workplace. We therefore conclude that the employees' acts of donning and doffing at the beginning and end of their work shifts are compensable as work, despite Mountaire's stated policy allowing its employees to don and doff certain protective equipment at home.