Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/234

 546US1

Unit: $$U5

[08-22-08 13:38:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 21 (2005)

23

Syllabus ers spend walking to and from the production ﬂoor after donning and before dofﬁng, as well as the time spent waiting to doff, are not affected by the Portal-to-Portal Act, and are instead covered by the FLSA. Pp. 37–40. 3. However, § 4(a)(2) excludes from the FLSA’s scope the time em­ ployees spend waiting to don the ﬁrst piece of gear that marks the be­ ginning of the continuous workday. Such waiting—which is two steps removed from the productive activity on the assembly line—comfort­ ably qualiﬁes as a “preliminary” activity. The fact that certain preshift activities are necessary for employees to engage in their principal activi­ ties does not mean that those preshift activities are “integral and indis­ pensable” to a “principal activity” under Steiner. No limiting principle allows this Court to conclude that the waiting time here is such an activ­ ity without also leading to the logical (but untenable) conclusion that the walking time in Anderson would also be a “principal activity” unaf­ fected by the Portal-to-Portal Act. Title 29 CFR § 790.7(h) does not support a contrary view. Pp. 40–42. No. 03–1238, 339 F. 3d 894, afﬁrmed; No. 04–66, 360 F. 3d 274, afﬁrmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner in No. 03–1238 and for respondent in No. 04–66. With him on the briefs in No. 03–1238 were Joseph R. Guerra, Rebecca K. Wood, Michael J. Mueller, and Joel M. Cohn. On the brief in No. 04–66 was Graydon G. Stevens. Thomas C. Goldstein argued the cause for petitioners in No. 04–66 and for respondents in No. 03–1238. With him on the briefs in No. 04–66 were Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Pamela S. Karlan, Timothy B. Fleming, Lori B. Kisch, and William C. Nugent. On the brief in No. 03–1238 were David N. Mark, William Rutzick, and Kathryn Goater. Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States as amicus cur iae supporting respondents in No. 03–1238 and petitioners in No. 04–66. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Deputy Solicitor