It similarly distinguished activities needed to improve the quality of work, such as sharpening knives at a meatpacking plant. The Court drew further support from the Department of Labor’s regulations defining “principal activities” at 29 C.F.R. § 790.8, a 1951 Opinion letter and the agreement of the Solicitor General that the activities were not compensable. It rejected the argument that the employer could have reduced the amount of time spent waiting by running its operations differently, finding that that was a topic better left to the bargaining table.

The Department of Labor has long maintained that changing into and out of clothes and safety gear is compensable work if the "changing of clothes on the employer's premises is required by law, by rules of the employer, or by the nature of the work." (29 C.F.R. §790.8, n. 65.) The Bamonte plaintiffs cited several reasons why donning and doffing of their uniforms and gear at the police station was necessary to perform their job and benefited their employer: 1. There is a risk of loss or theft of uniforms and safety gear at home; 2. Non-police officers could access their uniform and safety gear; 3.