Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
October 1, 2007, Argued; April 29, 2008, Decided
Docket No. 06-2969-cv
[*364] SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge:
This case requires us to decide whether the City of New York ("City") fire alarm inspectors must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., for all or part of their commuting time from home to work and back because they are required by their employer to carry and keep safe necessary inspection documents during their commutes. Plaintiffs-appellants Rajkumar Singh, Thomas S. Matthews, Vivek N. Patil, Trushant Shah, Faramarz Robeny and Fredo Joseph (collectively the "plaintiffs") appeal from a June 2, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee City and denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. We hold that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the mere carrying of inspection documents without any other active employment-related responsibilities while commuting is not work under the FLSA, except to [**3] the extent that it increases the duration of the commute. The record shows that any increase in commuting time in this case is de minimis as a matter of law and thus not compensable under the FLSA. Therefore, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that none of the plaintiffs' commuting time is compensable under the FLSA. In addition, we conclude that Singh's First Amendment retaliation claim is without merit because his speech was not a matter of public concern and was made only in his capacity as an employee and not as a citizen.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
524 F.3d 361 *; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9228 **; 155 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P35,428; 13 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 865
RAJKUMAR SINGH, THOMAS S. MATTHEWS, VIVEK N. PATIL, TRUSHANT SHAH, FARAMARZ ROBENY AND FREDO JOSEPH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, -v.- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
Subsequent History: As Amended May 19, 2008.
As Corrected May 6, 2008.
Prior History: Singh v. City of New York, 418 F. Supp. 2d 390, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30123 (S.D.N.Y., 2005)
commuting, inspection, documents, carrying, plaintiffs', employees, compensated, briefcase, matter of public concern, principal activity, district court, de minimis, indispensable, files, retaliation claim, integral, site, summary judgment, predominantly, predominant, lunch, spent, matter of law, Portal-to-Portal Act, employment-related, safe
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Appellate Review, Standards of Review, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Wage Payments, Labor & Employment Law, Scope & Definitions, General Overview, Statutory Application, Portal-to-Portal Act, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Speech, Public Employees, Retaliation, Elements