29 C.F.R. § 785.35
Home to work; ordinary situation
An employee who travels from home before his regular workday and returns to his home at the end of the workday is engaged in ordinary home to work travel which is a normal incident of employment. This is true whether he works at a fixed location or at different job sites. Normal travel from home to work is not worktime.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: David Kavanagh v. Grand Union Co., Inc., 192 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 1999).
David Kavanagh v. Grand Union Co., Inc., 192 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 1999). “29 C.F.R. § 785.35 . The Portal-to-Portal Act recognizes an exception where there is either (1) an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time of such activity .”
Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 ; 26 Fed.Reg. 190, 194 (Jan.”
United Transp. Union Local 1745 v. City of Albuquerque, 178 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 1999). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 (“An employee who travels from home before his regular workday and returns to his home at the end of the workday is engaged in ordinary home to work travel which is a normal incident of employment.”
Pietrzycki v. Heights Tower Serv., Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 822 (E.D. Ill. 2017). “34 (internal citation omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 ("An employee who travels from home before his regular workday and returns to his home at the end of the workday is engaged in ordinary home to work travel which is a normal incident of employment.”
Sec'y Labor v. Timberline S., LLC, 925 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2019). “) Although the plain language of the Portal-to-Portal Act suggests that home-to-work commutes are deemed compensable if the employer has a custom or practice of compensating for such work, 29 C.F.R. § 785.34 explains that "ordinary travel from home to work (see § 785.”
Little v. Technical Specialty Prods., LLC, 940 F. Supp. 2d 460 (E.D. Tex. 2013). “2007) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 ); accord Smith v. Aztec Well Servicing Co.”
Tina Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., 852 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2017). “See 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 ; 803 Ky. Admin. Regs.”
Kenneth L. Burton v. Hillsborough Cnty., Florida, 181 F. App'x 829 (11th Cir. 2006). “29 C.F.R. § 785.35 . 4 On the other hand, travel from an employer-designated location to the workplace is compensable under the FLSA as that travel constitutes a part of the employee’s principal activity.”
Dooley v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 307 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Mass. 2004). “The defendant argues that 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 provides that commute time is not compensable.”
Singh v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2008). “But those constraints, which are normal incidents of employment, see 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 , should not factor into the predominant benefit test, just as the constraints of a remote work site should not factor into the test for a worker who cannot use his break time as freely as he…”
Williams v. Epic Sec. Corp., 358 F. Supp. 3d 284 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “" 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 . This also is true regardless of the length of time of the commute.”
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 995 P.2d 139 (Cal. 2000). “( 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 (1998).) Some courts, as the Court of Appeal noted, have also interpreted the FLSA and Portal-to-Portal Act to preclude paying employees for their time spent traveling on employers' buses from designated meeting points to the actual place of work when…”
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.