A problem arises when an employee who regularly works at a fixed location in one city is given a special 1-day work assignment in another city. For example, an employee who works in Washington, DC, with regular working hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. may be given a special assignment in New York City, with instructions to leave Washington at 8 a.m. He arrives in New York at 12 noon, ready for work. The special assignment is completed at 3 p.m., and the employee arrives back in Washington at 7 p.m. Such travel cannot be regarded as ordinary home-to-work travel occasioned merely by the fact of employment. It was performed for the employer's benefit and at his special request to meet the needs of the particular and unusual assignment. It would thus qualify as an integral part of the “principal” activity which the employee was hired to perform on the workday in question; it is like travel involved in an emergency call (described in § 785.36), or like travel that is all in the day's work (see § 785.38). All the time involved, however, need not be counted. Since, except for the special assignment, the employee would have had to report to his regular work site, the travel between his home and the railroad depot may be deducted, it being in the “home-to-work” category. Also, of course, the usual meal time would be deductible.
Notes of Decisions
David Kavanagh v. Grand Union Co., Inc., 192 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 785.37 (1999). The distance involved in the travel here is akin to that referred to in the May 13, 1996 Opinion Letter.”
Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 428 F. App'x 400 (5th Cir. 2011).
“The Opinion Letter continued: For example, where a field engineer’s commute to the first job site in the morning takes four hours, we would consider the greater portion of travel time compensable under the principles described in 29 C.F.R. § 785.37 . That rule allows a portion…”
Ketchum v. City of Vallejo, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (E.D. Cal. 2007).
“29 C.F.R. § 785.37 . 15 . "The words ‘preliminary activity' mean an activity engaged in by an employee before the commencement of his ‘principal’ activity or activities, and the words 'postliminary activity’ means an activity engaged in by an employee after the completion of his…”
Chambers v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 793 F. Supp. 2d 938 (S.D. Tex. 2010).
“The Opinion Letter continued: For example, where a field engineer’s commute to the first job site in the morning takes four hours, we would consider the greater portion of travel time compensable under the principles described in 29 C.F.R. § 785.37 . That rule allows a portion…”
Taggart v. Town of Wakefield, 938 N.E.2d 897 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “1998), the court interpreted the provision in 29 C.F.R. § 785.37 (1997) that travel time is compensable only when it is “for the employer’s benefit.”
Imada v. City of Hercules, 138 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1998).
“29 C.F.R. § 785.37 (1997). The officers argue as they did in the district court that their travel to off-site training falls -within this exception because it is an “unusual assignment” performed primarily for the City’s benefit.”
Segura v. J.W. Drilling, Inc., 2015 NMCA 85 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).
“In the letter, the DOL stated that 5 where a[n employee’s] commute to the first job site in the morning takes four hours, we would consider the greater portion of travel time compensable under the principles described in 29 CFR 785.37. That rule allows a portion of the total…”
Segura v. J.W. Drilling, Inc., 2015 NMCA 085 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).
“In the letter, the DOL stated that where a[n employee’s] commute to the first job site in the morning takes four hours, we would consider the greater portion of travel time compensable under the principles described in 29 CFR 785.37. That rule allows a portion of the total…”
Rojas-Cifuentes v. Am. Modular Sys. CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 785.37 (2021).) Federal law considers the travel time in that scenario to be compensable to the extent it exceeds the normal home-to-work commute.”
Luster v. Awp Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2020).
“29 C.F.R. § 785.37 . In this case, Plaintiffs were required to travel to other cities and out of state for purposes of performing their job duties.”
Segura v. J.W. Drilling, Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).
“In the letter, 5 the DOL stated that 6 where a[n employee’s] commute to the first job site in the morning takes 7 four hours, we would consider the greater portion of travel time 8 compensable under the principles described in 29 CFR 785.37. That rule 9 allows a portion of the…”
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.