Hernandez

Hernandez v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co.

Good Law
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 852·29 Cal. App. 5th 131
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 15, 2018C084350California5,470 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duarte, J.

*134 Plaintiffs are class representatives of current and former employees of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company who install and repair video and internet services in customers' homes. They appeal a judgment in favor of defendant following cross-motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Plaintiffs sought compensation for the time they spent traveling in an employer-provided vehicle--loaded with equipment and tools--between their homes and a customer's residence (the worksite) under an optional and voluntary Home Dispatch Program.

The trial court, like federal courts that have considered the question under California *854 law, concluded the travel time is not compensable.

We agree and affirm. First, the Home Dispatch Program is not compulsory; because the plaintiffs here were not required to use the company vehicle to commute to work, they were not under the control of the employer. Further, simply transporting tools and equipment during commute time is not compensable work where no effort or extra time is required to effectuate the transport.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pacific Bell provides U-verse services in California. U-verse allows customers to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.