Lesane v. Winter
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156698
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are Anthony Lesane and 19 other ONI police officers at NMIC in Suitland, MD, pursuing FLSA claims for time spent donning and doffing uniforms, gear, and arms.
- Shifts operate around the clock: day 6:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m., swing 2:00 p.m.–10:30 p.m., night 10:00 p.m.–6:30 a.m.
- Officers must wear a defined ONI uniform and protective gear at shift start, including boots, undershirt, turtleneck/shirt, pants, insignia, and optional headwear, plus a duty belt with equipment and a ballistic vest.
- Weapons must be obtained at the NMIC armory at the start of each shift; they cannot be taken home.
- Arming-up and relief procedures involve a briefing, post assignment, and a reverse process for returning weapons; some don at home, most at NMIC.
- Most officers don the uniform at home; only protective gear is typically donned at NMIC, and a few officers don all gear at NMIC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether donning uniforms is compensable as principal activity | Lesane argues donning is integral to policing NMIC | Navy argues donning at home makes it non-integral | Donning uniforms not integral; not compensable as principal activity on record |
| Whether donning and doffing protective gear is compensable | Gear donning/doffing is integral to protection of NMIC | Gear is not clothes; regulatory support lacking | Gear donning/doffing is compensable as integral and indispensable |
| Whether arming up time is compensable | Arming up is integral; not de minimis | Time may be de minimis or partially compensated | Arming up compensable unless de minimis; waiting time uncertain on record |
| Application of de minimis principle to these activities | Total time exceeds de minimis; continuous workday increases compensable time | De minimis standard applies to small fractions of time | Unable to determine de minimis under current record; summary judgment denied on this ground |
| Impact of continuous workday rule on compensation for pre/postliminary activities | Alvarez continuous workday requires compensating all related activities | Record insufficient to quantify waiting/aggregate time | Continuous workday requires compensation for all activity from gear-up to gear-down; further proof needed to finalize amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (established compensable time framework and de minimis caveat)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (continuous workday concept applied to multiple activities)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (integral and indispensable concept for pre/post activities)
- Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (donning/doffing at home vs. work site; circuit split on compensability)
- Reed v. County of Orange, 716 F. Supp. 2d 876 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (district court on governing rules for compensability of donning/doffing)
- Martin v. City of Richmond, 504 F. Supp. 2d 766 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (donning/doffing analysis under principal activity framework)