October Term 2005 · Docket 03-1238

Does the Portal Act require employers to pay for walking and waiting time tied to mandatory gear changes?

Employers argue that walking and waiting time is unpaid because it occurs outside the main work tasks. Workers argue that this time is essential to their jobs and must be paid.

Official caption
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Phillips argued that the Portal Act excludes walking time occurring outside the workday.

    Mr. Goldstein argued that the outcome follows directly from prior precedent defining principal activities broadly.

    justice_souter_questioned_whether_integral_activities_are_principal_activities

    justice_oconnor_cited_prior_opinions_agreeing_that_principal_activities_include_integral_tasks

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests how courts define the start and end of a workday. The dispute centers on whether time spent walking to gear stations and waiting for equipment counts as compensable work.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The employer wants the Court to rule that walking and waiting time are not principal activities and thus unpaid.

The workers want the Court to rule that walking and waiting time are integral to the job and must be paid.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The employer argues that the Portal Act excludes time spent before or after principal activities, which they define as the core production tasks.

The workers argue that previous precedent defines principal activities to include all integral and indispensable tasks, such as changing into required gear.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Souter asked if integral activities are distinct from principal activities.

Justice O'Connor noted that prior opinions agreed that principal activities include integral and indispensable tasks.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines whether millions of workers receive pay for time spent preparing for and ending their shifts. It sets the national standard for calculating daily wages in industries requiring protective equipment.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON