Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/253

 546US1

42

Unit: $$U5

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

IBP, INC. v. ALVAREZ Opinion of the Court

In short, we are not persuaded that such waiting—which in this case is two steps removed from the productive activ­ ity on the assembly line—is “integral and indispensable” to a “principal activity” that identiﬁes the time when the con­ tinuous workday begins. Accordingly, we hold that § 4(a)(2) excludes from the scope of the FLSA the time employees spend waiting to don the ﬁrst piece of gear that marks the beginning of the continuous workday. IV For the reasons stated above, we afﬁrm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in No. 03–1238. We afﬁrm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in No. 04–66, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.