Imada

Imada v. City of Hercules

Good Law
138 F.3d 1294·1998 WL 113864
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 17, 1998No. 97-15405California1,562 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schroeder, J.

Appellants Dave A Imada, et al are police officers employed by appellee City of Hercules. The officers appeal the district court’s summary judgment for the City and dismissal of their complaint for back pay and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-209 . The principal issue is whether the FLSA requires the City to compensate the officers for time spent commuting from their homes to mandatory off-site training when that time exceeds their regular commuting time. The district court ruled compensation is not required because the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, does not require compensation for travel time from home to a site where an employee is to perform essential parts of the activities the employee has been hired to perform. We affirm.

The district court also concluded that the FLSA does not require the City to compensate the officers for timé spent traveling overnight to a training activity in another city. We affirm that ruling as well because it is required by the applicable regulations. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.39 (1997).

I. Background

The California Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission (POST) requires all state law…

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.