... the Administrator is issuing this interpretation of the term “clothes” in § 203(o), and of whether clothes changing covered by § 203(o) is a principal activity, to provide needed guidance on these important and frequently litigated issues.
After analyzing the history of interpretation, the Administrator opined that the section 203(o) clothing exception "does not extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job," essentially adopting the "plain meaning" rule from Alvarez v. IBP, Inc. (9th Cir. 2003) 339 F.3d 894 "that protective equipment does not fit within the definition of “clothes” under § 203(o), thereby making compensable the time workers spend donning and doffing that equipment ... [giving] the relevant language its ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." (Internal quotations omitted.)
No comments:
Post a Comment