54 F.4th 703
Fed. Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs are federal correctional officers at a prison in Milan, Michigan who work regular eight-hour prison shifts and volunteer for occasional overtime hospital shifts when inmates are sent to local hospitals.
- Hospital overtime shifts are offered from a volunteer list; once an officer accepts a voluntary shift they move to the bottom of the list; mandatory hospital shifts (when no volunteers) are not at issue.
- Prison and hospital shifts can occur back-to-back (prison shift ending at 6:00 a.m.; nearest hospital shift beginning one hour later). The disputed time is the drive between the prison and the hospital when an officer works the prison shift immediately followed by a voluntary hospital shift.
- Officers sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the FLSA and OPM regulations seeking pay for that inter-shift travel time; the Claims Court granted the government’s summary-judgment motion.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the challenged travel is not a "principal activity," is not within a "continuous workday," and is not otherwise compensable "hours of work" under applicable OPM/FLSA principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether travel between a prison shift and an immediately following voluntary hospital shift is a "principal activity" (5 C.F.R. §550.112(a)) | Bridges: the travel is part of the officers' principal activities because the hospital overtime and related travel are integral to the authorized overtime assignment. | Gov't: Portal-to-Portal Act excludes travel "to and from" the places where principal activities occur; officers’ principal activities are guarding inmates at prison/hospital, not the travel; §550.111 does not authorize these overtime assignments for FLSA-covered employees. | Travel is not a principal activity; Portal-to-Portal exclusion applies and §550.111 is inapplicable to these FLSA-covered officers. |
| Whether the travel is compensable as occurring during a "continuous workday" (Alvarez) | Bridges: the two shifts form a single continuous workday and DOL "job site to job site" rules should require compensation; OPM regs must harmonize with DOL. | Gov't: "Continuous workday" is defined by start/stop of principal activities; because travel is not a principal activity it falls outside a continuous workday; OPM and DOL definitions align. | Travel is not within a continuous workday as legally defined; DOL and OPM are not in conflict on this point. |
| Whether the travel qualifies as other compensable "hours of work" under OPM regs (e.g., 551.422, 551.412, 551.401) | Bridges: travel is required to staff needed hospital shifts, is preparatory/concluding and indispensable to guarding duties, and is for the employer's benefit (suffered/permitted). | Gov't: Treating all such travel as compensable would nullify the Portal-to-Portal commuting exclusion; officers offer no limiting principle distinguishing this travel from ordinary commuting. | Travel is not compensable under those OPM "hours of work" provisions; officers fail to overcome the Portal-to-Portal exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court rule that travel during a continuous workday can be compensable)
- Billings v. United States, 322 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.) (discussing harmonization of OPM and other federal rules)
- United Transp. Union Loc. 1745 v. City of Albuquerque, 178 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir.) (interpreting DOL "job site to job site" compensability for split shifts)
- Loc. Okla. Bank, N.A. v. United States, 452 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Doe v. United States, 372 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishing applicability of FEPA/OPM provisions to FLSA-covered employees)
- Bridges v. United States, 156 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl.) (Claims Court decision granting government summary judgment below)