Opinion ID: 723390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Confinement and Restricted Time

Text: 30 Defendants appeal the court's conclusion that employees must be paid for the four hours each day that they were confined to the barracks and for the approximately three hours each day they were restricted. Whether an employee must be compensated for off-duty hours is a question of law reviewed de novo. Berry v. County of Sonoma, 30 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1100 (1995). Underlying facts are reviewed for clear error. Id. Whether an employee is able to use non-work time effectively is a factual question. Id. 31 The court found that the women were confined to the employer-owned barracks from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., they could leave the barracks only by signing out, giving a destination and being accompanied by two or more employees. The court found that these restrictions prevented the employees from being able to use their non-work time effectively for their own purposes. There is ample evidence to support these findings, including the defendants' own rules and regulations. 32 Defendants contend that sleep-time compensation cases, in which employees must sleep at the employer's premises to be available if needed for work, and on-call time cases are the most analogous. See, e.g., Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 137 (1944) (sleep time); Owens v. Local No. 169, 971 F.2d 347, 350 (9th Cir.1992) (on-call time). 33 The on-call and sleep time cases, however, are not determinative. The employees here were not on-call. They were confined in the barracks and severely restricted during their free time without any legally recognized justification or work-related need. Under these unique circumstances, we affirm the award of compensation for four hours of confinement time and three hours of restricted time.