The plaintiffs in this case were police officers of the City of Mesa, Arizona.? ?They claimed they should have been paid for the donning and doffing of their uniforms and gear. The City provided them with the option of donning and doffing at home or at work.?? The district court granted summary judgment to the City, ?and ?the ?Ninth ?Circuit ?affirmed.???? The majority held that where a police department requires donning and doffing at work, the time is compensable. ?It applied a three part test: (1) was the activity ?work??; (2) was the activity an ?integral and indispensible duty? and; (3) was the activity de minimis? ?The majority relied in part on a 2006 DOL memorandum holding that donning and doffing is compensable only if the nature of the job mandates that it take place on the employer?s premises.

Judge? Gould? concurred? in? part? and dissented in part. ?He disagreed that the location of donning and doffing should be a bright line rule as to whether the activity is compensable. ?He agreed with the majority that the time donning and doffing uniforms? was? not? compensable? but? would? have held the opposite with respect to protective gear. He believed that the protective gear was indispensable and integral to the job of being a police officer.?? Bamonte v. City of Mesa, No. 08- 16206 ?(3/25/10; ?Rawlinson; ?Gould ?George ?(D. Nev.)).