283 F. Supp. 3d 881
C.D. Cal.2017Background
- Plaintiff Bill Taylor sued Cox Communications alleging Home Start field technicians were not paid for time commuting home in company vehicles; state court certified a class and case was removed to federal court.
- Home Start allowed technicians to take company vehicles home, clock in remotely, drive to first assignment, and commute home from last assignment; technicians could visit depot weekly to load tools.
- Participation in Home Start was documented as voluntary; technicians could opt out by notifying a supervisor; ~70–80% of technicians in the Santa Barbara office participated.
- Employer paid technicians for travel from home to the first assignment but treated travel home after the last assignment as unpaid commuting time.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment that return commutes are compensable under California law; Cox moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the certified claims.
- The court denied Plaintiff’s motion and granted Defendants’ motion, holding Home Start commutes were not compensable as "hours worked."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commute home is compensable because employees were "subject to the control of the employer" | Taylor: Home Start rules (vehicle use, restrictions, equipment custody) place technicians under Cox's control during commutes home | Cox: Home Start was voluntary; technicians not required to use company vehicles, so they were not under employer control during commute | Held for Cox: Home Start was optional, so technicians were not "subject to the control" on return commutes |
| Whether commute home is compensable as time employee was "suffered or permitted to work" | Taylor: Transporting tools/equipment means technicians were "suffered or permitted to work" during commutes | Cox: Mere transportation of tools does not add work or exertion; no additional time or tasks during commute | Held for Cox: "Suffered or permitted to work" requires work-related exertion or tasks beyond mere transport; transporting tools alone is insufficient |
| Whether derivative claims (wage statements, waiting time penalties, UCL) survive if commute time not compensable | Taylor: Derivative claims follow if commute time is compensable | Cox: These claims fail because they depend on the underlying wage claim | Held for Cox: Derivative claims fail because the underlying commute-wage claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (IWC "hours worked" has two independent tests: "subject to the control" and "suffered or permitted to work")
- Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying Morillion and requiring proof both that use of employer vehicle is effectively required and that employer restrictions place employee under control)
- Donatti v. Charter Commc'ns, L.L.C., 950 F.Supp.2d 1038 (W.D. Mo. 2013) (transporting tools in employer vehicle did not make commute compensable under federal law)
- Reich v. New York City Transit Auth., 45 F.3d 646 (2d Cir. 1995) (transportation of work equipment that did not increase exertion or time did not convert commute into compensable work)