29 C.F.R. § 785.12
Work performed away from the premises or job site
The rule is also applicable to work performed away from the premises or the job site, or even at home. If the employer knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed, he must count the time as hours worked.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Chao v. Gotham Registry, Inc., 514 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2008).
Chao v. Gotham Registry, Inc., 514 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 . It would appear impractical, for example, to require a K-9 officer to report to his supervisor before and after grooming his dog.”
Joseph H. Holzapfel, & Others Similarly Situated v. Town of Newburgh, Ny Charles M. Kehoe, Chief of Police, Town of Newburgh Police Dep't, 145 F.3d 516 (2d Cir. 1998). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 (1997); see also 29 C.”
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins., 582 F.3d 500 (3rd Cir. 2009). “29 C.F.R. § 785.12 . The parties agree that hours worked off-site or beyond an employee’s regular schedule count if “[the employer] knows or has reason to believe that an employee is continuing to work extra hours.”
Bull v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 212 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “Regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 9 make *224 clear that, for an activity performed by an employee off-the-clock to constitute compensable work, “the employee’s supervisor [must] know[] or ha[ve] reason to…”
Truslow v. Spotsylvania Cnty. Sheriff, 783 F. Supp. 274 (E.D. Va. 1992). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 (regulations pertaining to work time apply “to work performed away from the premises or the job site, or even at home”); Renfro v.”
Dominguez v. Quigley's Irish Pub, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 . It is no answer to suggest, as the defendants do here, that the potential damages are relatively low — 4.”
Graham v. City of Chicago, 828 F. Supp. 576 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 (regulations pertaining to work time apply “to work performed away from the premises or the job site, or even at home”).”
Vitali v. Reit Mgmt. & Rsch., LLC, 36 N.E.3d 64 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 (making explicit that employer that knows or has reason to know of work performed away from job site must compensate for that time).”
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins., 510 F. Supp. 2d 363 (M.D. Penn. 2007). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 . In the instant case, Erdman alleges that she completed the 118.”
Ketchum v. City of Vallejo, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (E.D. Cal. 2007). “3d at 1082 (employers are required to compensate employees for hours worked beyond his shift if the employer knows or has reason to believe that the employee continues to work); 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 (“If the employer knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed,…”
Hellmers v. Town of Vestal, NY, 969 F. Supp. 837 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 ; see also Forrester v.”
Holzapfel v. Town of Newburgh, New York, 950 F. Supp. 1267 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.12 ; see Forrester v. Roth’s I.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.