546US1
24
Unit: $$U5
[08-22-08 13:38:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
IBP, INC. v. ALVAREZ Opinion of the Court
General Hungar, Howard M. Radzely, Allen H. Feldman, Steven J. Mandel, and Michael P. Doyle.† Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. These consolidated cases raise questions concerning the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, with respect to activities of employees who must don protective clothing on the employer’s premises before they engage in the pro ductive labor for which they are primarily hired. The prin cipal question, which is presented in both cases, is whether the time employees spend walking between the changing area and the production area is compensable under the FLSA. The second question, which is presented only in No. 04–66, is whether the time employees spend waiting to put on the protective gear is compensable under the statute. In No. 03–1238, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered “yes” to the first question, 339 F. 3d 894 (2003); in No. 04–66, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit an swered “no” to both questions, 360 F. 3d 274, 281 (2004). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 543 U. S. 1144 (2005). †A brief of amici curiae urging reversal in No. 04–66 was filed for the National Employment Lawyers Association et al. by Sandra Thourot Kr ider, Mar issa M. Tirona, Patr icia A. Shiu, and Cather ine K. Ruckelshaus. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in No. 03–1238 and affirmance in No. 04–66 were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Samuel Estreicher, Meir Feder, Robin S. Conrad, Robert Costagliola, and Quentin Riegel; and for the National Chicken Council et al. by David R. Wylie and D. Christopher Lauderdale. Jonathan P. Hiatt, James B. Coppess, and Laurence Gold filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organi zations as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 04–66 and affirmance in No. 03–1238.
