California employers and employees alike know the usual rule: time spent driving between job sites is compensable, but ordinary commute time is not. But this is not always the case.
In Oliver v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., 51 Cal.App.5th 1 (2020), the California Court of Appeal held that there are circumstances where travel from home to the first work assignment of the day, or back home from the last work assignment of the day, may be compensable “hours worked.”
The plaintiffs were a class of copier service technicians who traveled to multiple customer locations each day to repair equipment. Their employer, Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (“Konica Minolta”), required them to use their own personal vehicles: (a) for work travel; (b) to store and transport company-provided tools, parts, and equipment in those vehicles; and (c) to maintain enough cargo space in their personal vehicles to hold a significant amount of inventory. Some plaintiffs explained that the volume of equipment was so large that their backseats were folded down, their cars were filled to capacity, and they were unable to transport passengers or realistically stop for personal errands on their way to the first job.
Although Konica Minolta did not strictly mandate that the plaintiffs keep every part in their vehicle, the plaintiffs argued it was not feasible to meet performance expectations without carrying most or all of the assigned equipment. The plaintiffs also argued that because Konica Minolta effectively restricted their ability to use their commute for personal purposes, their entire commute should be paid.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Konica Minolta, holding that commute time was not compensable because it occurred between home and the first or last job site. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that there were triable issues of fact about whether the plaintiffs’ commute time was actually under Konica Minolta’s control and therefore compensable “hours worked”. Specifically, the Court of Appeal found factual disputes about whether carrying tools and parts in personal vehicles was mandatory (either expressly or as a practical matter), and whether the volume of required equipment restricted the plaintiffs’ ability to use their commute time for personal purposes.
This ruling does not mean that all commute time is compensable, but it does warn that policies requiring employees to use personal vehicles, and to store employer equipment in those vehicles, may mean that the employee is owed wages for commute time between home and work if the practical effect is to limit personal freedom during the commute.
Employees who are unable to use their vehicles for personal purposes during their commute, and who are not compensated for that time, may be entitled to recover wages, interest, and statutory penalties.
Employers seeking to avoid liability while maintaining non-compensable commute time should adopt clear, written policies on personal-vehicle requirements and equipment storage. They should ensure that any practices limiting an e§mployee’s ability to use their personal car remain genuinely optional (not required or functionally necessary to meet performance expectations), and that employees have realistic, accessible alternatives for storing or transporting tools and inventory so their vehicles remain usable for personal errands, passengers, and everyday needs.
Click here to read the Court of Appeal’s decision.
If you have questions about compensation for driving time, call (916) 612-0326 or email ([email protected]) Finley Employment Law today. Finley Employment Law serves clients throughout California, including Sacramento, Roseville, Davis, Folsom, and Elk Grove.
The information in this blog post is for general informational and advertising purposes only and is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Instead, you should speak with a California employment attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.