Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc.
643 F.3d 352
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Kuebel sued Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. on behalf of himself and others for FLSA and NYLL claims including commute-time and off-the-clock overtime, plus retaliation theories.
- B&D previously implemented a commute policy tied to 60 miles or 60 minutes, relying in part on a 1999 DOL opinion letter; compensation varied by leg of travel.
- Kuebel performed home-office tasks (email, voicemail, PDAs, reports, signs) and other administrative duties before and after store visits; these activities were not deemed to extend the workday for commuting purposes.
- Kuebel allegedly falsified his timesheets due to supervisor directives to record 40 hours per week; B&D contends there was no formal policy to falsify, and Kuebel admitted self-recording inaccuracies.
- District court granted summary judgment for commute-time claims, denied/withheld ruling on off-the-clock claims at preliminary stages; appellate court affirmed commute ruling, vacated off-the-clock ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are commute-time claims compensable under the continuous workday rule? | Kuebel argues home activities are integral to principal duties, expanding the workday. | B&D argues ordinary home-to-work travel remains non-work time. | Commute time not extended as compensable under continuous workday. |
| Do at-home administrative tasks extend the workday for commute-time purposes? | At-home tasks are integral and indispensable to principal activities. | Home administrative tasks do not shift the start/end of the workday. | At-home tasks do not render the entire commute compensable. |
| What standard governs off-the-clock overtime proof at summary judgment? | Anderson standard allows evidence to show amount of work by reasonable inference. | Because timesheets were falsified, a stricter standard should apply. | Anderson standard applies; issues of fact remain as to amount of uncompensated work. |
| Did B&D know or should have known about off-the-clock work? | Kuebel testified he complained about overtime and under-recording. | No formal complaints via hotline; credibility issues. | Genuine issue of material fact as to knowledge persists. |
| Whether willfulness affects statute of limitations and liquidated damages under NYLL? | Evidence could show willful underpayment and justify 3-year limits and liquidated damages. | Willfulness not yet established; 2-year limit may apply. | Willfulness and NYLL liquidated-damages issues remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 2005) (integral and indispensable activities; continuous workday interpretation)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (Supreme Court, 1946) (remedial standard: show amount of uncompensated work by just and reasonable inference)
- Reich v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 45 F.3d 646 (2d Cir., 1995) (fact-dependent inquiry on what is integral and indispensable)
- Singh v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 361 (2d Cir., 2008) (continuous workday interpretations and related regulations)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (Supreme Court, 2011) (impact of Supreme Court decisions on retaliation claims)
- Seever v. Carrolls Corp., 528 F. Supp. 2d 159 (W.D.N.Y., 2007) (courts’ approach to off-the-clock proofs and limitations)