Perez v. City of New York
832 F.3d 120
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former Assistant Urban Park Rangers (AUPRs) employed by NYC Parks who allege FLSA violations for unpaid time spent donning/doffing uniforms, unpaid compensable lunch work, improper overtime compensatory leave rate, and use of comp time past 480 hours instead of pay.
- AUPR uniform includes professional clothing (olive drab pants/jacket, hat, insignia) and equipment (bulletproof vest, utility belt with handcuffs, baton, mace, radio, flashlight, summons book, tape recorder). Plaintiffs estimate donning/doffing takes ~5–30 minutes daily.
- Defendants (City, Parks Dept., Commissioner, Mayor) moved for partial summary judgment arguing (inter alia) that donning/doffing is not compensable because it is not "integral and indispensable," is de minimis, or is excluded by the collective bargaining agreement; they also raised limitations, reporting, and party-defect defenses.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for defendants, holding as a matter of law that donning/doffing was not "integral and indispensable" and closed the case without reaching other defenses.
- On appeal the Second Circuit vacated and remanded: it held the record could support a finding that donning/doffing is integral and indispensable and therefore remanded for the district court to reconsider donning/doffing and the other issues in the first instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are donning and doffing AUPR uniforms compensable ("integral and indispensable")? | Donning/doffing is intrinsic to AUPR duties because uniform and equipment (vest, belt, tools, insignia) are necessary to perform and to be identified as enforcement personnel. | Donning/doffing is preliminary/postliminary non-compensable activity (or at most protects against routine risks) and thus not integral and indispensable. | Vacated district court. Remanded: fact issues exist — reasonable factfinder could find donning/doffing integral and indispensable; district court must reconsider de minimis/CBA defenses and other issues. |
| Could time be non‑compensable under the de minimis doctrine? | Plaintiffs contend time is compensable if integral; de minimis is fact-specific and not resolved here. | Defendants assert the brief time is de minimis and thus noncompensable. | Not decided on appeal; remanded for district court to address as fact question. |
| Does the collective bargaining agreement exclude changing time per §203(o)? | Plaintiffs: CBA does not bar compensability here. | Defendants: CBA excludes changing/washing time from hours worked, so donning/doffing noncompensable. | Not decided on appeal; remanded for district court to apply §203(o) and factual record. |
| Are other defenses (limitations period, failure to report overtime, Parks Dept. as defendant) meritorious? | Plaintiffs oppose these defenses. | Defendants raised statutory limitations, inadequate reporting, and that Parks Dept. is not a proper party. | District court erred by not addressing these; on remand the court should decide them in the first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (activities that are integral and indispensable to principal activities are compensable)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (changing/showering to prevent lead poisoning compensable)
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2014) (defining integral and indispensable standard)
- Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assocs., P.C., 274 F.3d 706 (2d Cir. 2001) (pre/post-shift machine prep may be integral and indispensable)
- Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (protective gear not compensable where it guards only against routine risks)
- Reich v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 45 F.3d 646 (2d Cir. 1995) (pre/post-shift activities undertaken for employer's benefit more likely compensable)