Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
428 F. App'x 400
5th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Chambers and Werchan were Sears in-home service technicians under the HDP.
- Sears replaced a central office start with Home Dispatch Program (HDP) in 2001, placing vans at technicians’ homes.
- HDP begins when tech leaves home for first call and ends after last call, with the van kept at home and certain commuting costs paid by Sears.
- Technicians log time via SST, which tracks routes and commutes; over 35 minutes of one-way commute is paid as overage.
- Non‑HDP technicians report to an office or parking location and are not paid for their commutes; HDP participants are paid for overage but non‑HD interruptions are treated differently.
- District court granted Sears summary judgment on all claims and Chambers’ class certification as moot; appellate court adopts district court reasoning and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HDP commutes are compensable under the FLSA/ECFA | Chambers contends HDP commute times are compensable | Sears argues HDP commute is non-compensable under ECFA | HDP commute is non-compensable under ECFA |
| Whether SST activities and transport of parts are compensable | Plaintiffs claim SST use and part transport are compensable | SST activities and transporting parts are incidental to commuting and non-compensable | SST activities and transporting parts are incidental to commuting and non-compensable |
| Whether other off-the-clock activities are compensable under the FLSA | Off‑clock morning/evening tasks are compensable | No evidence Sears required or knew of off‑clock tasks; de minimis or incidental | Off‑clock activities not compensable; de minimis or incidental; no genuine issue |
| Whether state-law claims survive when FLSA applies | Texas Payday Law may apply if FLSA not compensable | FLSA applies; Texas Payday Law not applicable to this scenario | FLSA applies; Texas Payday Law claims fail; no further relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (time spent commuting may be compensable as part of the workday when principal activities require it)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (integral and indispensable activities may be compensable)
- Alvarez v. Aldine, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (Portal-to-Portal Act and ECFA guidance on compensability)
- Vega v. Gasper, 36 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 1994) (home-to-work travel generally non-compensable absent exception)
- Rutti v. Lojack Corp., Inc., 596 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (ECFA/incidental activities; morning/evening duties non-compensable; de minimis considerations)
- Buzek v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., 501 F.Supp.2d 876 (S.D. Tex. 2007) (vehicle-use incidental to commute not compensable)
- Dunlop v. City Elec., Inc., 527 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1976) (integral/indispensable test for principal activities)
- Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc., 899 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir. 1990) (de minimis time limits for off-the-clock work)