29 C.F.R. § 785.17
On-call time
An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is working while “on call”. An employee who is not required to remain on the employer's premises but is merely required to leave word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working while on call. (Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944); Handler v. Thrasher, 191 F. 2d 120 (C.A. 10, 1951); Walling v. Bank of Waynesboro, Georgia, 61 F. Supp. 384 (S.D. Ga. 1945))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Charlene Brigham, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Brigham Carl Hall Gary Millsap Donald E. Reed v. Eugene Water & Elec. Bd., 357 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004).
Charlene Brigham, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of James Brigham Carl Hall Gary Millsap Donald E. Reed v. Eugene Water & Elec. Bd., 357 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004). “2000) (noting 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 ); Braziel, 166 F.3d at 1063 (applying 29 C.”
Casserly v. State, 844 P.2d 1275 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). “’ ” 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 (1991). Whether “waiting time” is “working time” depends on the particular case and is a question of fact to be resolved by the trial court.”
United Transp. Union Local 1745 v. City of Albuquerque, 178 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 1999). “’” 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 . The fact that courts have held that employees who are on-call, and definitely more restricted in their ability to pursue personal pursuits than the bus drivers here, are nonetheless not on duty, further supports our conclusion.”
Keun-Jae Moon v. Joon Gab Kwon, 248 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “29 C.F.R. § 785.17 . The defendants’ arguments are well-taken.”
David Rutlin v. Prime Succession, Inc. Kerley & Starks Funeral Homes, Inc., Jointly & Severally, 220 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2000). “…required to leave word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working while on call. 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 .”
Marshall Martin, Jr., on Behalf of Himself & All Other Employees of the Ohio Tpk. Comm'n Similarly Situated v. Ohio Tpk. Comm'n, 968 F.2d 606 (6th Cir. 1992). “221 (d); see also 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 (containing virtually identical language).”
Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 428 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2011). “’ ” 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 . Plaintiffs again argue that technicians cannot use their commute time effectively for their own purposes because of the restrictions placed on the use of the company vans.”
Irma Ruth Halferty v. Pulse Drug Co., Inc., D/B/A Pulse Ambulance Serv., 821 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1987). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 . These sections are designed to deal with employees who do not either reside on the employer’s premises or work at their houses.”
Frederick George Bright v. Houston Nw. Med. Ctr. Survivor, Inc., 934 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1991). “See 29 CFR § 785.17 : “An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer’s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is working while 'on call.”
Jonites v. Exelon Corp., 522 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2008). “’ ” 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 ; see Pabst v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.”
Julian v. Swift Transp. Co., 360 F. Supp. 3d 932 (D. Ariz. 2018). “29 C.F.R. § 785.17 . This regulation might have originally been aimed at employees who travel on an incidental basis and not at employees, such as truck drivers, whose entire jobs consist of extended periods of travel away from home.”
Lyle G. Armitage, Jr. v. City of Emporia, Kansas, 982 F.2d 430 (10th Cir. 1993). “3 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 (1985)). In both Norton and Boehm v.”
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.