Opinion ID: 3065034
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: walking, riding, or traveling to and from the

Text: actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and (2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities. For purposes of this subsection, the use of an employer’s vehicle for travel by an employee and 11460 RUTTI v. LOJACK CORP. activities performed by an employee which are incidental to the use of such vehicle for commuting shall not be considered part of the employee’s principal activities if the use of such vehicle for travel is within the normal commuting area for the employ- er’s business or establishment and the use of the employer’s vehicle is subject to an agreement on the part of the employer and the employee or represen- tative of such employee. 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(emphasis added). [1] The ECFA’s language states that where the use of the vehicle “is subject to an agreement on the part of the employer and the employee,” it is not part of the employee’s principal activities and thus not compensable. Id. There is no suggestion that the agreement cannot be a condition of employment. Indeed, it would appear that the most logical place to record an agreement between an employee and an employer concerning the use of an employer’s vehicle is in the employee’s employment contract. One would expect Congress to specify if it did not intend that the statute have such a likely result. Accordingly, we find the plain meaning of the statute does not support Rutti’s position. See K & N Eng’g, Inc. v. Bulat, 510 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Statutory interpretation begins with the plain language of the statute. If the text of the statute is clear, this court looks no further in determining the statute’s meaning.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Adams v. United States, 471 F.3d 1321, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding commute in government vehicle non-compensable, though condition of employment). [2] A review of the legislative history confirms the plain language of the ECFA. Both the sponsors and the opponents of ECFA recognized that the requisite agreement could be part of an employee’s conditions of employment. The Report on the bill (H.R. 1227) stated that the bill “does not require a written agreement, this requirement may be satisfied RUTTI v. LOJACK CORP. 11461 through a formal written agreement between the employee and employer, a collective bargaining agreement between the employee’s representatives and the employer, or an understanding based on established industry or company practices.” H. R. Rep. No. 104-585, at 4 (1996). The minority report objected that the bill “permits an employer to compel an employee to agree to use the employer’s vehicle for commuting purposes, as a condition of employment,” and commented that the majority had rejected an amendment that provided that the agreement “must be knowing and voluntary, and may not be required as a condition of employment.” H. R. Rep. No. 104-585 at 8. The author of the bill responded that in some instances an employee’s use of the employer’s vehicle could be a condition of employment “depending on the agreement between the employer and employee or the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.” 142 CONG. REC. 12234 (1996). Thus, the ECFA’s legislative history confirms its plain language: the “agreement” required by ECFA may be a condition of the employee’s employment. 2. The conditions Lojack placed on Rutti’s use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. [3] Rutti’s second argument is that restrictions placed on his use of the vehicle render the commute compensable. The ECFA provides that “activities performed by an employee which are incidental to the use of such vehicle for commuting shall not be considered part of the employee’s principal activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2). Rutti argues that the restrictions imposed by Lojack exceed the “incidental” and make his use of Lojack’s vehicle to commute an integral part of his principal activities for Lojack. Rutti cites Lojack’s restrictions against using the vehicle for personal pursuits and transporting passengers, the requirement that he drive directly from home to work and from work to home, and the requirement that he have his cell phone on. Rutti’s perspective finds no support in the language of the ECFA, is counter to its legisla11462 RUTTI v. LOJACK CORP. tive history, and has been rejected by those courts that have considered the issue. [4] The legislative history shows that Congress recognized that employers would place conditions on their employees’ use of vehicles for commuting. House Report 585 commented that it “is not possible to define in all circumstances what specific tasks and activities would be considered ‘incidental’ to the use of an employers vehicle.” H. R. Rep. No. 104-585 at 5. However, it stated that communications between employer and employee, “routine vehicle safety inspections or other minor tasks, and transportation of tools and supplies, would not change the noncompensable nature of the travel.” Id. The minority report objected that as “non-employee passengers in such vehicles are uniformly prohibited,” an employee may be “effectively prohibited from engaging in the very common and often necessary family task of dropping off his or her child at school on the way to work.” Id. at 13. The failure of the minority report to stimulate any change in the bill indicates that Congress did not object to employers setting conditions on their employees use of company cars for commuting. [5] Those courts that have addressed this question have held that the cost of commuting is not compensable unless the employees show that they “perform additional legally cognizable work while driving to their workplace.” Adams, 471 F.3d at 1325; see also Smith v. Aztec Well Servicing Co., 462 F.3d 1274, 1286-87 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that “[w]hile the Portal-to-Portal Act clearly excludes normal home to work travel from the scope of the FLSA, . . . Congress . . . still intend[ed] for an employee’s activities to fall within the protection of the [FLSA] if they are an integral part of and are essential to the principal activities of the employees”) (quoting Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 254 (1956)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The line between incidental and integral is well-illustrated by two cases from the Federal Circuit. In Bobo v. United RUTTI v. LOJACK CORP. 11463 States, 136 F.3d 1465 (Fed Cir. 1998), a group of Border Patrol agent dog handlers sought compensation for the time spent transporting their dogs between their homes and Border Patrol offices. Id. at 1466-67. They were not allowed to use the vehicles for personal use, were not allowed to make personal stops during their commute, were required to wear their official uniforms while using the vehicles, were required to monitor their radios, report their mileage and look out for suspicious activities. Id. at 1467. In addition, they were required “to make stops for the dogs to exercise and relieve themselves.” Id. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit held that even accepting the restrictions as compulsory and for the benefit of their employer, “the burdens alleged are insufficient to pass the de minimis threshold.” Id. at 1468. The court specifically noted that “the main restriction on the INS Agents is the prohibition on making personal stops during their commute,” and held that “such a restriction on their use of a government vehicle during their commuting time does not make this time compensable.” Id. Adams v. United States, 471 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007), also concerned a suit by government law enforcement agents seeking compensation for their commute from home to work in government-owned vehicles. Id. at 1323. They argued that they had to be available for emergency calls, had to have their weapons with them, had to monitor their communication equipment, could not run any personal errands, and had to proceed directly from home to work and back without unauthorized detours or stops. Id. The Federal Circuit held that pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 254(a), merely commuting was insufficient; “the plaintiffs must perform additional legally cognizable work while driving to their workplace in order to compel compensation for the time spent driving.” Id. at 1325. The court further held that plaintiffs “had the burden of showing that their drive time was compensable work for FLSA purposes and of showing that it does not fall into the set of activities excluded from the definition of compensable work by the Portal-to-Portal Act as interpreted by our precedent.” 11464 RUTTI v. LOJACK CORP. Id. at 1326. The court concluded, citing its prior opinion in Bobo, that “[u]nder the Portal-to-Portal Act, plaintiffs’ driving time is not compensable.” Id. at 1327. [6] Here, Lojack placed fewer restrictions on Rutti’s use of its vehicle than were present in Adams and Bobo. More importantly, Rutti has failed to show that Lojack’s restrictions amount to “additional legally cognizable work.” Adams, 471 F.3d at 1325. The prohibition against carrying non-employee passengers was common practice before the statute was amended in 1996 and is not directly related to the “principal activities of the employees.” Aztec Well, 462 F.3d at 1287. In Bobo, the Federal Circuit specifically stated that the restriction on making personal stops did not make the commute time compensable. Bobo, 136 F.3d at 1468. Moreover, this restriction is not directly related to Rutti’s principal activities for Lojack. In addition, although the police officers in both Bobo and Adams were required to monitor their communications equipment, in neither case was this considered sufficient to compel compensation.6 In light of Rutti’s failure to cite any authority supporting a claim that Lojack’s restrictions constitute “additional legally cognizable work,” and because there are no material questions of fact as to the restrictions on Rutti’s use of Lojack’s vehicle, we affirm the district court’s determination that Rutti is not entitled to compensation for the time he spends commuting in Lojack’s vehicle. 3. Rutti has failed to show that he is entitled to compensation under California law for his commute in Lojack’s vehicle. Rutti contends that even if his commute is not compensable 6 Although the Federal Circuit in Adams and Bobo concluded that the restrictions there at issue did not pass the de minimis threshold (Adams, 471 F.3d at 1327; Bobo, 136 F.3d at 1468), as a practical matter, this is the same as determining that the restrictions did not amount to “additional legally cognizable work.” RUTTI v. LOJACK CORP. 11465 under ECFA, it is compensable under California law pursuant to Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000). He asserts that in Morillion, the California Supreme Court adopted a standard more favorable to employees “by merely requiring that the worker be subject to the ‘control of the employer’ in order to be entitled to compensation.” [7] The “control of the employer” standard set forth in Morillion may be more favorable to employees than federal law, but it does not cover Rutti’s commute. In Morillion, the employer required the employees “to meet at the departure points at a certain time to ride its buses to work, and it prohibited them from using their own cars.” Id. at 587. The court held that under California law, the employees’ “compulsory travel time, which includes the time they spent waiting for [the employer’s] buses to begin transporting them, was compensable,” but “the time [the employees] spent commuting from home to the departure points and back again is not.” Id. at 587-88. Here, Rutti’s use of Lojack’s automobile to commute to and from his job sites is more analogous to the “home to departure points” transportation in Morillion than to the employees’ transportation on the employer’s buses.7 Our review of subsequent cases construing California law fails to reveal any case extending Morillion to cover Rutti’ situation. In Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal. App. 4th 263, 271 (2006), the court held that time spent by an employee on an employer-provided shuttle bus from the employer-provided parking lot to the job site was not compensable because employees were not required to use the parking lot or to take the shuttle. In Burnside v. Keiwit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 7 Although this is a close issue, our reading of Morillion is informed by the court’s statement “we emphasize that employers do not risk paying employees for their travel time merely by providing them transportation.” 22 Cal. 4th at 588. Although Rutti was required to drive the company vehicle, he was free to determine when he left, his route, and which assignment he drove to first. 11466 RUTTI v. LOJACK CORP. 1053 (9th Cir. 2007), we read Morillion as covering “employees for time spent traveling from designated meeting points to their job sites and back” in company provided vehicles. Id. at 1070. There was no suggestion that the employees were entitled to compensation for commuting to the designated meeting points. The decision in Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine Ltd., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1524 (2008), similarly concerned time spent by limousine drivers between calls, not the time spent commuting from home to their first assignments. Furthermore, our reading of Morillion is consistent with California Labor Code § 510(b), which provides that “[t]ime spent commuting to and from the first place at which an employee’s presence is required by the employer shall not be considered to be a part of a day’s work, when the employee commutes in a vehicle that is owned, leased, or subsidized by the employer and is used for the purpose of ridesharing.”8 [8] Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly held that Rutti is not entitled to compensation for the time spent commuting to and from his job sites in a vehicle provided by Lojack under either 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2) or California law.