{"id":1832,"date":"2003-06-30T08:00:26","date_gmt":"2003-06-30T08:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sanfranciscoemploymentattorneys.net\/blog\/?p=116"},"modified":"2003-06-30T08:00:26","modified_gmt":"2003-06-30T08:00:26","slug":"paid-for-driving-working-off-the-clock","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.california-labor-law-attorney.com\/paid-for-driving-working-off-the-clock\/","title":{"rendered":"Should you be paid for your commute to work? Are you driving \/ working off the clock?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Sack<\/p>\n

Most people are not paid to drive to work; they are paid once they arrive and begin their work. Mike Ritti sued Lojack<\/a>\u00a0for his commute time and originally lost. However, Rutti v Lojack, March of 2010, the 9th circuit court of appeal found that Rutti and all other technicians at Lojack were owed their commute time from home to their first stop.<\/p>\n

Mike Rutti worked for Lojack as an installation technician. As such, he would drive a company vehicle from his home to the client\u2019s location each morning to install alarm systems. Lojack had several company policies regarding the work vehicle. Rutti was not allowed to: run personal errands in the vehicle, have any passengers other than co workers, use his cell phone while driving and he was required to go directly to the job in the morning and directly home at the end of his last appointment.<\/p>\n

Rutti Sued Lojack on behalf of himself and all other technicians for his commute time and for the time he spent performing \u201cpreliminary\u201d activities, such as, mapping, receiving, prioritizing tasks\/jobs, routing before leaving his home every morning, as well as the time he spent at the end of his day when he returned home to wrap up all of the necessary documentation from that day\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

Originally the court found that Rutti\u2019s commute time and pre\/post work activities were not compensable under theEmployee Commuting Flexibility Act<\/a>\u00a0(ECFA). Then new case law presented itself:\u00a0Morillion v Royal Packing Company<\/a>, where the California Supreme Court found that employees must be compensated during time when an employee is subject to the control of the employer. Rutti filed an appeal and will receive back pay for the time he spent working off the clock during his commute. However, the court determined that the time he spent at home before and after his commute was not compensable based on the language found in the ECFA.<\/p>\n

The ECFA states that employers are not required to compensate employees for activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to the employee’s principal activities. It further designates that even if the activities are related to the employee’s principal activity, the time is still not compensable if it is\u00a0de minimis<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In determining if an activity is de minimis the court considered:<\/p>\n