New England Biz Law Update
Requiring employees to carry work documents with them while commuting does not mean they have to be compensated for that time under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 2nd Circuit recently ruled.
A group of New York City fire alarm inspectors had sought compensation for their commute time, when they were required to carry work-related documents.
But “the mere carrying of inspection documents without any other active employment-related responsibilities while commuting is not work under the FLSA, except to the extent that it increases the duration of the commute,” the court held (Singh v. The City of New York, No. 06-2969).
It also cautioned against the potential “wide-ranging impact” of ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which would have “suddenly impos[ed] upon businesses across the country a liability to compensate employees anytime those employees must commute to work with important documents, tools, or communications devices.”
Ronald E. Sternberg, senior counsel in the appeals division of the New York City Law Department who represented the city, said a ruling in favor of the fire alarm inspectors would have “worked a revolution in the way courts have traditionally evaluated commuting cases. The mere fact that they carried their briefcases did not transmute an otherwise non-compensable commute.”
Michael J. Andrews, a solo practitioner in New York City who represented the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for comment.
Commuting time ‘materially unaltered’
New York City required its fire alarm inspectors to carry with them a large briefcase weighing up to 20 pounds and containing the files for a full week’s caseload of inspections during their commute to and from work.
The inspectors said carrying and keeping the inspection files safe affected their commutes – such as causing them to miss a train or a bus to keeping them from social events because they had to go directly home in order to ensure the safety of the documents.
They filed suit seeking compensation for their time and effort.
But the court disagreed, affirming summary judgment for the city.
“Carrying a briefcase during a commute presents only a minimal burden on the inspectors, permitting them freely to use their commuting time as they otherwise would have without the briefcase,” the panel wrote in its decision. “While the city certainly benefits from the plaintiffs’ carrying these materials, it cannot be said that the city is the predominant beneficiary of this time.”
The court said the plaintiffs couldn’t be compensated even for the instances when the documents created additional commuting time under the de minimis doctrine, as their “aggregate claims are quite small, generally amounting to only a few minutes on occasional days.”
It cited similar cases from the 6th, 10th and 11th Circuits.
