400 F.Supp.3d 1122
D. Colo.2019Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Peterson (and 359 opt-ins) sued Nelnet alleging unpaid pre-shift time for call-center employees (Flex Advisors, Collectors, Advisors I) who booted computers, swiped security badges, and launched Citrix before clocking in. Plaintiff claimed this pre-shift time should be paid under the FLSA.
- The conditionally certified collective covered employees at Aurora (CO), Lincoln (NE), and Omaha (NE) from July 15, 2014 to April 25, 2018; 359 individuals opted in (336 remained at decision time plus named plaintiff).
- Undisputed facts: employees must wake computers, insert Imprivata badges, enter credentials, load Citrix and other job software before becoming "call-ready;" median boot-up and Citrix-active times were generally about 0.5–1.3 minutes each (so total usually well under ~2.5 minutes).
- Nelnet’s timekeeping system measured pay from the point employees clocked in at their workstation; Nelnet does not and could not practically link Imprivata or Citrix timestamps to payroll without substantial technical change or burdensome cross-referencing.
- Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment filed; court considers (1) whether pre-shift activities are compensable principal activities or integral/indispensable preliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act and related FLSA doctrine, and (2) whether any compensable time is de minimis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are pre-shift login/boot activities compensable as "principal activities" under FLSA? | Peterson: DOL Fact Sheet #64 and practice show starting computer/downloading apps is a first principal activity for call-center agents and thus compensable. | Nelnet: Logging-in is preliminary, minimal, and akin to ingress/wait time; not a principal activity. | Held: Not principal work; employees are hired to service loans, not to log in. |
| If not principal, are pre-shift activities "integral and indispensable" under Steiner so compensable? | Peterson: Booting and loading Citrix are integral and indispensable because employees cannot access employer-provided systems (needed to service borrowers) without them. | Nelnet: Activities are routine, minimal, and allow personal use; courts treating similar tasks as noncompensable. | Held: Pre-shift activities are integral and indispensable to CCRs’ principal work (computer applications are the substantive tools of performance). |
| Does the de minimis doctrine bar recovery despite indispensability? | Peterson: Time was regular and recurring; aggregate claim significant across many employees. | Nelnet: Daily time is brief (often <3 minutes), administratively burdensome to capture (systems not linked), and aggregate/ per-employee damages are trivial. | Held: Time is de minimis as a matter of law—brief per-shift, regular but precisely ascertainable, and administrative burden of capturing it outweighs the small aggregate/ per-employee recovery. Summary judgment for Nelnet. |
| Should the court retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Colorado state-law claim? | Peterson: Opposed dismissal of state claim. | Nelnet: Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction after disposing of FLSA claims. | Held: Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Peterson’s state-law claim without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (Sup. Ct. 1946) (formative standard on "hours worked" and de minimis/recording issues)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (Sup. Ct. 1956) (preliminary activities are compensable when integral and indispensable)
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (security screenings not integral to principal activities)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (Portal-to-Portal Act and limits on compensable preliminary activities)
- Castaneda v. JBS USA, LLC, 819 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2016) (continuous-workday rule; compensability across first to last principal activity)
- Reich v. Monfort, 144 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir. 1998) (de minimis multi-factor balancing test adoption)
- Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984) (de minimis analysis factors and approach)
- Corbin v. Time Warner Ent., 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) (administrative burden may justify de minimis finding where capture of tiny amounts is onerous)
- Crenshaw v. Quarles Drilling Corp., 798 F.2d 1345 (10th Cir. 1986) (transporting/readying tools can be integral and compensable)