Employees should be compensated for work suffered or permitted on behalf of their employer.  However, the rules are slightly more complicated for that, as shown in a recent decision by a federal court in Minnesota.

In Rael v. Q3 Contracting, the plaintiff was a non-exempt employee, working as a utility locator.  He used his company vehicle to travel to and from his work assignments from his home.  Prior to leaving his home, and upon returning to his home at the end of day, Rael was required to perform a fifteen-minute inspection of his vehicle to ensure everything was working.  He was required to submit documentation to confirm he completed his inspections every week.  However, Rael, and every other utility locator for Q3, was only paid for work beginning at the start of his first assignment until the end of his last assignment.  He received no pay for his inspection or his commute to his first assignment.  In total, Rael alleged he worked up to 10 hours a week, “off the clock.”  He sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  Q3 moved to dismiss, stating the tasks Rael allegedly performed were not compensable.

After recognizing that the FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees for all compensable time, the court noted that the Portal-to-Portal Act provides that employees’ regular commutes to and from home are not compensable.  In addition, it stated that while employees’ principal activities are compensable, activities performed by an employee that are preliminary or postliminary to those activities are not compensable.

The Court then cited language specific to the very acts for which Rael was claiming compensation:

…the use of an employer’s vehicle for travel by an employee and activities performed by an employee which are incidental to the use of such vehicle for commuting shall not be considered part of the employee’s principal activities if the use of such vehicle for travel is within the normal commuting area for the employer’s business or establishment and the use of the employer’s vehicle is subject to an agreement on the part of the employer and the employee or representative of such employee.

Therefore, in order to claim compensation, it was a requirement for Rael to plead that the vehicle inspections were part of his principal activities as a utility locator.  Noting that Rael failed to include such an allegation in his pleading, the court found that the time Rael spent conducting vehicle inspections before and after his first and last commutes of the day were distinct from the principal activities of his job, and not compensable.  With that, his FLSA claims were dismissed.

Based on the clear language of the statute, it was a fairly easy decision for the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.  However, the plaintiff’s state (Colorado) law claims were allowed to proceed because a “principal activity” analysis was not required under its laws.  So, while the employer was successful on the federal level, the lawsuit was allowed to continue.

When dealing with employee pay issues, it is imperative for employers to pay attention to both federal and state laws when determining legal means of compensation.  If you, or your organization, need assistance in complying with state or federal labor laws, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.