Although no appellate court has yet addressed the issue of whether donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) a police uniform and protective gear is compensable, most agencies facing such lawsuits continue to settle the issue out court. The trend is likely the product of aggressive and costly litigation, combined with the growing belief that such activities are in fact integral and indispensable to the underlying function of a peace officer.

Trial courts within the state continue to issue various decisions, each with slight distinctions justifying the results. In Abbe v. City of San Diego (S.D. Cal. 2007) 2007 WL 4146696, the court found that donning & doffing was flat out not compensable because officers allowed to dress at home. In Martin v. City of Richmond (N.D. Cal. 2007) 504 F.Supp.2d 766, the court ruled differently, stating that donning & doffing the uniform was not compensable, but the protective gear may be compensable if the nature of the work precluded officers from getting dressed at home. In Lemmon v. City of San Leandro (N.D. Cal. 2007) 538 F.Supp.2d 1200, the court determined that donning & doffing is compensable because it benefits employer and is necessary for the job. Likewise, in Maciel v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal. 2008) 569 F.Supp.2d 1038, donning & doffing was compensable because for all practical purposes it was required to be done at the station.

Most recently, in Nolan v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2009), a federal district court held that donning & doffing the uniform and protective gear is integral and indispensable and that whether it takes place at home or at work is insignificant.

The list of cases supporting officers' rights to compensation is growing, and has spawned most employers to strongly consider resolving the issue out of court. Through education, and where necessary litigation, many employers have been sensible enough to realize the amount of time and effort that goes into donning and doffing, and that the time is spent predominantly for the benefit of the employer. As a result, most employers have negotiated fair settlements when confronted with the issue.

Most recently, the Alhambra Police Officers' Association and the Ontario Police Officers' Association are the latest to reach an agreement to resolve their disputes. In Alhambra, each Association member received $2,500.00 as damages and 30 minutes per day prospectively to don and doff. In Ontario, officers received either $1,500 or $2,000.00, as well as 15 minutes per day prospectively to don and doff. These negotiated settlements are significant because they obtain benefits for officers while avoiding the risks and uncertainty as well as years of litigation. The settlements provide for immediate compensation and provide benefits, such as donning and doffing time, that might not be required by law until the Supreme Court decides the issue.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael A. McGill is a partner with the law firm of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill and represented the Alhambra and Ontario officers in their donning & doffing litigation.