The United States Supreme Court originally stated that employees subject to the act must be paid for all time spent in “physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business.” (Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U. S. 590 (1944)) Subsequently, the Court ruled that there need be no exertion at all and that all hours are hours worked which the employee is required to give his employer, that “an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing, or to do nothing but wait for something to happen. Refraining from other activity often is a factor of instant readiness to serve, and idleness plays a part in all employments in a stand-by capacity. Readiness to serve may be hired, quite as much as service itself, and time spent lying in wait for threats to the safety of the employer's property may be treated by the parties as a benefit to the employer.” (Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944); Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134 (1944)) The workweek ordinarily includes “all the time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place”. (Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946)) The Portal-to-Portal Act did not change the rule except to provide an exception for preliminary and postliminary activities. See § 785.34.
[26 FR 190, Jan. 11, 1961, as amended at 76 FR 18859, Apr. 5, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Callahan v. City of Chicago, 78 F. Supp. 3d 791 (N.D. Ill. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Individuals are “working” within the meaning of the Act — and so are entitled to be paid for any time spent so “working” — when they are performing activities “controlled or required by the employer ■ and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his…”
Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (In Re Amazon.com, Inc.), 905 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 3× “This view also seems to comport with 29 C.F.R. § 785.7 , which provides: The United States Supreme Court originally stated that employees subject to the act must be paid for all time spent in "physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the…”
Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources, 443 P.3d 924 (Cal. 2019).
· cites it 3× “) By way of comparison, the interpretive bulletin of the United States Department of Labor, defining compensable work time for purposes of the FLSA, states in relevant part: "[E]mployees subject to the act must be paid for all time .”
Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, 805 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Ark. 2011).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 785.7 (2011). In Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co.”
Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Serv., Inc., 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “'" (29 C.F.R. 785.7.) "The workweek ordinarily includes `all the time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place.”
Bull v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 212 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“Monistrol’s testimony persuaded the court that it was a benefit to her employer and controlled or required by it.”
Giguere v. Port Resources Inc., 927 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2019).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 785.7 ("The workweek ordinarily includes 'all the time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place.”
Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 315 F.R.D. 523 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
“Finally, Plaintiffs reject Defendants’ contention that the question of whether they performed compensable work will involve highly individualized inquiries, citing the broad interpretation of the term “work” under the FLSA.”
Brubach v. City of Albuquerque, 893 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D.N.M. 2012).
· cites it 2× “may hire a man to do nothing, or to do nothing but wait for something to happen”); see also 29 C.F.R. § 785.7 (same) (citations omitted).”
Thomas v. Cnty. of Fairfax, Va., 758 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Va. 1991).
“124 (1944); 29 C.F.R. § 785.7 . Whenever an employee is “on duty” or “engaged to wait” in the sense that his time belongs to and is controlled by the employer, the employee is working.”
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.