Reed

Reed v. County of Orange

Good Law
716 F. Supp. 2d 876·2010 WL 2342394·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59277
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 10, 2010Case SACV 05-01103-CJC(ANx)California3,862 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carney, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Margaret Reed and 682 opt-in Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are Deputy Sheriffs for the Orange County Sheriffs Department (“the County”) who seek to be paid for donning and doffing their uniforms. By order dated February 10, 2010, the Court denied the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment as to their donning and doffing claims. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.2010), which addressed the compensability of donning and doffing police uniforms. The County now asks the Court to reconsider its order denying the motion for summary judgment. After reconsidering, the Court has determined that there is no genuine issue of material fact raised regarding whether donning and doffing of the uniforms worn by Plaintiffs are compensable work activities under the FLSA. To be compensable under the FLSA, the donning and doffing of a uniform must be so “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s principal work activities that it has to be done at work. This is clearly not the case here. The vital law enforcement…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.