Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bamonte v. City of Mesa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 25, 2010No. 08-16206Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGould, Circuit Judge

I would not announce a bright-line location rule that controls the compensability of preliminary and postliminary activities under the FLSA. The location where an activity is performed is just one of many useful tools in the fact-sensitive compensability analysis. Location is not in and of itself the controlling test. Because I disagree with the majority’s approach and its holding with respect to job-related protective gear, I concur in the judgment only with respect to the majority’s determination that the donning and doffing of police uniforms is non-compensable. I would hold that the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Christensen v. Harris CountySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. IBP, Inc. v. AlvarezSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  4. Steiner v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  5. Ted L. Lindow v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API