950 F. Supp. 2d 1038
W.D. Mo.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Donatti and Cowan are broadband technicians for Charter, with Donatti preferring company vehicles for commuting and Cowan not using them.
- Charter policies during the Class Period excluded commuting time and pre-/post-commute tasks from compensation, even for Charter-vehicle users.
- Technicians may be assigned Charter vehicles for commuting or may use personal vehicles and park Charter vehicles at a facility; “on-call” status can require taking a Charter vehicle home.
- Timekeeping and Vehicle Policies, Handbook provisions, and memoranda governed when technicians were paid and for what activities, including limits on off-the-clock work.
- Plaintiffs allege Charter’s policies violate the FLSA, Portal-to-Portal Act, and ECFA; Charter moves for summary judgment asserting compliance with these statutes.
- Court granted Charter’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, finding no genuine fact issue and that policies comply with Portal-to-Portal Act/ECFA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ECFA excludes Charter commute time from compensable work | Donatti/Cowan contend ECFA excludes only some activities | Charter argues ECFA properly excludes commuting and incidental activities | Charter's policies comply; no compensation for ordinary commute and incidental activities |
| Who bears the burden to show compensable work under Portal-to-Portal Act | Plaintiffs rely on cases treating exemptions as employer defenses | Porta-to-Portal Act/ECFA define exclusion; burden on plaintiffs to show compensable work | Court assigns burden on plaintiffs to show compensable work; but failed to show non-incidental work |
| Are pre-/post-commute activities incidental or principal work | Pre-/post-commute tasks are principal work | Activities are incidental to commuting and de minimis | Activities deemed incidental; de minimis, not compensable |
| Is transporting equipment during commute a compensable principal activity | Tools/equipment transport during commute is for Charter’s benefit | Transport is incidental to commuting and excluded by ECFA | Transport deemed incidental; not compensable |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting on summary judgment; movant must show no genuine dispute)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (dispositive standard; credibility issues not for summary judgment)
- Adams v. United States, 471 F.3d 1321 (Fed.Cir.2006) (burden to show compensable work; ECFA exclusions)
- Rutti v. Lojack Corp., Inc., 596 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir.2010) (ECFA/normal commuting area; compensation determinations)
- Chambers v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 428 F. App’x 400 (5th Cir.2011) (ECFA incidental activities; noncompensable)