United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
December 3, 2008
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 07‐1055 Appeal from the
United States District Court
ANTOINETTE PIRANT, for the Northern District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, of Illinois, Eastern Division.
v. No. 03 C 9383
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Joan Humphrey Lefkow,
Defendant‐Appellee. Judge.
O R D E R
Based on the petition for panel rehearing filed on November 3, 2008, by Defendant‐
Appellee United States Postal Service, the panel opinion issued on September 4, 2008, is
hereby modified as follows:
! Footnote number 2 on page 12 of the slip opinion is deleted.
! Pages 12 and 13 of the slip opinion are modified to delete the full paragraph that
begins “In Gorman v. Consolidated Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586, 594 (2d Cir. 2007) . . .“
and to remove certain text from the final two paragraphs of the opinion.
Pages 12 and 13 now read:
noted, however, that “changing clothes and showering under normal
conditions” generally would not be compensable. Id. at 332; see also
29 C.F.R. § 790.7(g) (“[o]ther types of activities which . . . would be
No. 07‐1055 Page 2
considered ‘preliminary’ or ‘postliminary’ activities, include . . .
changing clothes, washing up or showering”); Reich v. IBP, Inc., 38 F.3d
1123, 1126 n.1 (10th Cir. 1994) (requiring employees to put on safety
glasses, earplugs, and a hard hat “is no different from having a baseball
player show up in uniform, a businessperson with a suit and tie, or a
judge with a robe”); Anderson v. Pilgrimʹs Pride Corp., 147 F. Supp. 2d 556
(E.D. Tex. 2001) (donning of aprons, smocks, gloves, boots, hairnet, and
earplugs not compensable).
Here, Pirant was not required to wear extensive and unique
protective equipment, but rather only a uniform shirt, gloves, and work
shoes. The donning and doffing of this type of work clothing is not
“integral and indispensable” to an employee’s principal activities and
therefore is not compensable under the FLSA. It is, instead, akin to the
showering and changing clothes “under normal conditions” that the
Supreme Court said in Steiner is ordinarily excluded by the Portal‐to‐
Portal Act as merely preliminary and postliminary activity.
Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that Pirant is not
entitled to include this time in her hours‐of‐service total for purposes of
the FMLA.
AFFIRMED.
The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied.