Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California has granted in part and denied in part a defense motion for partial summary judgment regarding an FLSA collective action for donning and doffing police uniforms and equipment.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff and his fellow consenting officers are not entitled to compensation for the time they spend donning and doffing their police uniforms. Insofar as their claims purport to recoup compensation for such activity, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part. As for the donning and doffing of required “duty equipment,” the Court concludes that summary judgment is unwarranted, notwithstanding Defendant’s formal policy of permitting officers to put on and take off their protective gear at home. In the Court’s view, a triable issue of fact exists about whether the “nature of [a peace officer’s] work” actually requires them to don and doff their gear at the station. 29 C.F.R. § 790.8(c) n.65. For this reason, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in DENIED in part.
There is no sure indication that this case will be appealed, but Martin v. City of Richmond is nonetheless interesting reading if you have donning/doffing cases. You can download it in pdf here.