Maria Vega, Eva Trevino, on Behalf of Herself and as Next Friend of Pedro Trevino v. John W. Gasper
36 F.3d 417 | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 1994
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Farm workers sued their employer for unpaid wages under federal labor law. The court ruled that travel time to and from the job site is not compensable pay. However, the court sent the case back to determine whether waiting time at the site before and after work should be paid. This matters to construction subcontractors because similar wage disputes arise when workers spend time on-site but not actively working.
Key Takeaways
- •Travel time to and from the job site does not have to be paid, even if the employer requires workers to travel there
- •Waiting time at the job site may be compensable depending on whether it primarily benefits the employer or the workers—get legal advice before deciding not to pay it
- •Wage violations under federal law can result in liquidated damages (extra penalties) and attorney fees, making compliance critical
Travel time here is a noncompensable preliminary and postliminary activity.
Frequently Asked Question
Do I have to pay workers for time spent traveling to the job site?
No. Under federal law, travel time to and from the job site is not compensable work time. However, if workers must wait at your site before or after their shift, that waiting time may need to be paid depending on whether it primarily benefits you as the employer. Consult an employment attorney to determine your specific obligations.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.