Since 2003 and the case Alvarez. v. IBP, 339 F.2d 894 (9th Cir. 2003), in which the Ninth Circuit decided that meat cutters were entitled to FLSA compensation for donning and doffing safety equipment at the workplace, a number of lawsuits have been filed by police associations seeking to extend that ruling to law enforcement uniforms and equipment. 

However, in its analysis of the donning and doffing issue, the Ninth Circuit opinion (authored by Judge Johnnie Rawlinson from Las Vegas) rejected those arguments and concluded that, with the exception of motorcycle officers who were considered (by Mesa P.D.) to be on-duty when they left their residence in uniform, there was no law, rule, policy or regulation in that case which required officers to don their uniforms and equipment at the station. 

Although the department provided officers with lockers at the station, those facilities were provided for the officers' convenience and the location of donning and doffing remained optional to the officers.  This is contrary to the meat cutters' case, who were actually required to don and doff certain safety equipment at the workplace.

Based upon this decison, it is clear that any agencies not wishing to compensate officers under the FLSA, must ensure that its policies do not require uniforms and equipment to be donned and doffed on the employer's premises.

The Court gave considerable deference to a 2006 memo from the U.S. Dept. of Labor, which stated that donning and doffing of required gear is compensable only if the employer requires that it take place on the employer's premises.  It is not compensable under FLSA if the employee retains the option to change at home (even if they choose to change at the workplace).

Read the decision in its entirety at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/25/08-16206.pdf