Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—WORKING TIME—11th Cir.: Travel time in company trucks to and from shop to jobsites not compensable time, (Mar 26, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

About half of the employees drove their own vehicles directly to the jobsites and did not stop at the shop in the mornings.

A district court did not err in determining that an employer did not violate the FLSA when it did not pay employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week for travel time in company trucks to and from its shop to various jobsites, ruled the Eleventh Circuit, in an unpublished decision. The undisputed fact that some of employees did not report to the shop, but rather traveled directly from their homes to the jobsites, supported the district court’s conclusion that reporting to the shop and driving a company truck to and from the jobsite was not indispensable. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer (McAnally v. Alabama Plumbing Contractor LLC, Nos. 23-11593 and 23-11595 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025, unpublished)).

The employees worked as plumbers for the employer, which had a shop where it used to keep company-owned trucks and various parts and supplies. The shop was closed in December 2022.

On October 25, 2019, the employer sent a group text message to its employees stating that “time starts when you get to the job. Not when you get to the shop.”

The employees were instructed to report to the shop in the morning to receive job assignments and instructions, gather supplies and parts, and load or hook up heavy equipment and machinery needed that day to perform their job. On many mornings, plumbing supply companies provided breakfast to the employees at the shop.

Travel scenarios. According to the named plaintiff, there were three travel scenarios: (1) a plumber drives his personal vehicle to the shop in the morning, then drives his personal vehicle to the first job site of the day, then drives his personal vehicle from the last job site of the day back to the shop or directly home; (2) a plumber drives his personal vehicle to the shop in the morning, gets an APC truck and uses that truck to ride from the shop to the first job site of the day, then rides the APC truck from the last job site back to the shop, then uses a personal vehicle to go home; or (3) a plumber drives a personal vehicle directly from home to the first job site of the day, and then drives home from the last job site of the day.

The company’s owner testified that about half of the employees drove their own vehicles directly to the jobsites and did not stop at the shop in the mornings. If an employee opted to use a company truck for transportation, the employee was expected to return the truck to the shop.

Portal-to-Portal Act. Under the Portal-to-Portal Act, an employer is not required to pay an employee for: (1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform; and (2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities.

The use of an employer’s vehicle for travel by an employee and activities performed by an employee which are incidental to the use of such vehicle for commuting shall not be considered part of the employee’s principal activities if the use of such vehicle for travel is within the normal commuting area for the employer’s business or establishment and the use of the employer’s vehicle is subject to an agreement on the part of the employer and the employee or representative.

The undisputed fact that some of employees did not report to the shop, but rather traveled directly from their homes to the jobsites, supported the district court’s conclusion that reporting to the shop and driving a company truck to and from the jobsite was not indispensable. Further, the employer dispensed with the shop entirely in 2022 and has continued to perform the principal activity of employment. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the time employees sought to be compensated for was not compensable work under the Portal-to- Portal Act and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the employer.

The cases are Nos. 23-11593 and 23-11595.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Michael Scott Harwell (Harwell Law Firm) for Paul McAnally. William Kennedy Hancock (Hancock Law) for Alabama Plumbing Contractor LLC.

Companies: Alabama Plumbing Contractor LLC

Cases: WageHour WorkingTime Overtime AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews