Time spent donning and doffing flame-retardant gear not compensable; employees failed to show PPE was essential to “lethal” work environment
At issue in this FLSA case was whether time spent by employees of an aluminum smelting plant “donning and doffing” their protective gear was not compensable under the FLSA because the practice was neither integral nor indispensable to their work. The employees worked in two departments, the “potroom” and the ingot departments, each of which required employees to be in proximity to molten metal. In order to reduce the inherent risks, the employer required its employees to wear certain protective gear, including flame-retardant clothing, boots, and safety glasses. Employees were given a certain number of flame-retardant outfits. They were prohibited from laundering the flame-retardant outfits at home, but they were allowed to keep clean outfits at home. Employees, thus, could change at home before their shift, but most chose not to do so due to either the laundry mandate, or concerns that toxic particles could contaminate their homes. The employees filed an FLSA suit, contending that the time they spent “donning and doffing” their clothes, walking from their locker room to the work site, and showering after shifts was compensable. The employer moved for summary judgment.
In granting the employer’s summary judgment motion, the federal court found that the subject “donning and doffing” was not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ jobs. The employees were not required to “don and doff” on the employer’s premises — a mandate that the U.S. Department of Labor “don and doff” on the employer’s premises, and they were unable to cite authority contrary to that advice memorandum that would apply this directive to voluntary on-site “donning and doffing.”
Furthermore, the federal court found that the “donning and doffing” was not necessary for immersion into a “lethal” atmosphere. The employees argued that the proximity to the molten metal rendered the worksite lethal, but the court found the employees had utterly failed to demonstrate its lethality. Thus, based on the lack of evidence, the court found there was no triable issue of fact regarding the allegedly lethal atmosphere. As such, the “donning and doffing” were not indispensable and integral to immersion in such an atmosphere.
The court, therefore, held that the “donning and doffing” were not compensable activities. Additionally, because the “donning and doffing” were not indispensable and integral to the employees’ jobs, the time spent showering and walking from the locker room to the job site was, likewise, not compensable.
(Adams v. Alcoa, Inc., Case No. 7:07-CV-1291 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011)).