Perez v. City of New York
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14104, 832 F.3d 120, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1726 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an activity is compensable as 'integral and indispensable' to an employee's principal activities if it is an intrinsic and necessary element of those activities, considering whether it is for the employer's benefit, essential to the primary job goal, lacking in employee choice, required at the workplace, and, for protective gear, guards against workplace dangers that transcend ordinary risks.
Facts:
- Assistant Urban Park Rangers (AUPRs) are employed by New York City's Department of Parks & Recreation to provide public services in parks, including giving directions, assisting in accidents, implementing crowd control, and enforcing park rules by issuing summonses or making arrests.
- AUPRs are required to wear uniforms comprising professional clothing (e.g., olive drab pants, 'Smokey the Bear' hats, Parks Department insignias) and equipment (e.g., bulletproof vest, utility belt holding handcuffs, gloves, radio, flashlight, baton, mace, summons book, tape recorder).
- The Parks Department prescribes the uniform components in painstaking detail, and AUPRs may be disciplined for non-compliance.
- AUPRs claim they spend approximately five to thirty minutes each day donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) these uniforms.
- AUPRs allege that the Parks Department and City failed to pay them for compensable activities performed before and after their regularly scheduled shifts, including donning and doffing their uniforms.
- Substantial evidence suggests the Parks Department requires AUPRs to don and doff their uniforms at the workplace.
- AUPRs' professional clothing is vital for public identification, attracting citizens in need of assistance, and establishing their authority to investigate violations, issue summonses, make arrests, and intervene in emergencies.
- The risk of sustaining gunfire is an occupational hazard for AUPRs enforcing municipal laws.
Procedural Posture:
- Several active and former Assistant Urban Park Rangers (AUPRs) sued the City of New York, its Parks Department and Commissioner, and its Mayor in district court, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failing to pay wages for compensable activities, including donning and doffing uniforms, performed before and after regularly scheduled shifts.
- After the close of discovery, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs’ donning and doffing activities were not compensable under the FLSA because they were not "integral and indispensable" to their principal activities, were de minimis, or were excluded by a collective bargaining agreement.
- The district court (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge) granted partial summary judgment for the defendants on January 15, 2015, concluding as a matter of law that the plaintiffs’ donning and doffing of uniforms were not compensable activities because they did not qualify as integral and indispensable to the plaintiffs’ principal activities, and subsequently ordered the case closed.
- The plaintiffs timely appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment and the premature closing of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the time spent by Assistant Urban Park Rangers donning and doffing their uniforms, including professional clothing, utility belts with law enforcement tools, and bulletproof vests, qualify as "integral and indispensable" to their principal activities under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), thereby entitling them to compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Sack, Circuit Judge
No, the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs' donning and doffing of uniforms were not integral and indispensable to their principal activities as AUPRs was erroneous as a matter of law, and a reasonable factfinder could conclude otherwise. The court vacated the district court's decision, emphasizing that the FLSA mandates compensation for "principal activity or activities" including those "integral and indispensable part of the principal activities" (citing IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Steiner v. Mitchell). An activity is "integral" if "intrinsically 'connected with'" and "indispensable" if "necessary" to the principal activity (citing Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp.). The standard is fact-dependent and considers whether the activity is for the employer's benefit, indispensable to the primary job goal, and if the employee has a choice (citing Reich v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.), and if it's performed at the workplace (citing Alvarez v. IBP, Inc.). The court found that the AUPRs' uniforms: (1) are for the employer’s benefit with no employee choice and likely required to be donned/doffed at the workplace; (2) contain tools (utility belt items like handcuffs, mace, summons book) essential for law enforcement duties, analogous to tools in King Packing, Kosakow, and Reich; (3) include protective gear (bulletproof vest) that guards against "workplace dangers that transcend ordinary risks" (e.g., gunfire) as discussed in Gorman and Steiner; and (4) comprise professional clothing crucial for identification and establishing authority, without which AUPR efforts could be ineffective or perilous. The district court erred by: (1) misclassifying uniforms as solely protective rather than also containing tools; (2) characterizing specialized protective elements as 'generic' like those in Gorman; and (3) misconstruing Gorman as a categorical rule against compensability for generic gear, instead of focusing on whether the gear mitigates extraordinary risks. The case was remanded for the district court to consider the de minimis doctrine, collective bargaining agreement, and other outstanding summary judgment issues.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the fact-intensive application of the FLSA's "integral and indispensable" test, particularly for law enforcement and similar public service roles where uniforms serve multiple functions (tools, protection, and authority). It emphasizes that courts must conduct a granular analysis of each uniform component and its direct nexus to the employee's principal duties and the specific workplace dangers, rather than making broad classifications. The ruling makes it more challenging for employers to claim that essential uniform-related activities are non-compensable, reinforcing the importance of rigorous judicial scrutiny into the true necessity and specialized nature of required work gear. This precedent will likely impact future cases involving pre- and post-shift activities for employees whose uniforms are critical to their job performance or safety.
