Crudele v. Price

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the DOL’s statements on compensation under the Portal Act lack the force of law because they are “general policy statements”
• concluding that donning and doffing 12 of police uniforms were not integral and indispensable activities in part because 13 they were ʺnot required by law, rule, the employer or the nature of the police 14 officersʹ work to be performed at the employerʹs premisesʺ
• holding that donning and doffing police uniforms and related gear was not compensable as officers could change at home and there was “[n]o requirement of law, rule, the employer, or the nature of the work [that] mandate[d] donning and doffing at the employer’s premises”
• noting that officers choosing to not dress at home due to “safety concerns” are making a decision based on “preferences rather than mandates” such that they “retain the option and ability to don and doff . . . at home”
• rejecting the argument that donning and doffing protective gear is integral and indispensable to an employee's principal activities when the employee chooses to keep the protective gear at work but is not required to do so
• “We are similarly persuaded that the 2006 DOL memorandum . . . should be considered in our resolution of this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).