First Monday in October

With all the emphasis on the Roberts hearings, I haven't seen much on the upcoming term. So I started looking, and . . . I thought it might be fun to point out how boring a lot of Supreme Court cases are. Really? You mean it's not all abortion, abortion, and partial-birth abortion? Well, look at the first case on the term's argument calendar, I.B.P., Inc. v. Alvarez; Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc. (Nos. 03-1238; 04-66).

From the petitioners' brief:

Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, an employer's obligation to pay wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 does not include time an employee spends "walking . . . to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform." 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(1).

The question presented is: (1) Whether walking that occurs between compensable pre- and post-shift clothes-changing and the time employees arrive at or depart from their actual work stations constitutes noncompensable "walking . . . to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee[s] [are] employed to perform" within the meaning of Section 4(a)(1).

Now while the Portal-to-Portal Act is important . . . I'm sure it is . . . really, not to make fun, but . . . let me just say, I'm glad I didn't have to read the rest of the brief.