U.S. Department of Labor Issues New Opinion Letters Regarding the Compensability of Travel Time

On July 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued two opinion letters that provide guidance on compensable travel time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A brief summary of the two opinion letters follows.

FLSA2026-9 – Issue: Does a midday commute become compensable worktime when an employee works remotely before or after traveling to the office?

• The employer allows non-exempt, office-based employees to work remotely when business needs permit, but it does not allow the employees to work in more than one location (for example, home and office) in a single workday due to concerns that any time an employee spends commuting between locations after performing work at one location would be considered compensable “worktime” under the FLSA.
• The employer sought clarification as to whether time in three hybrid-work situations for non-exempt employees who split their workday between home and office would be considered compensable worktime:
  1. an employee who splits the workday between home and the office to avoid rush-hour traffic;
  2. an employee who performed additional project work from home before reporting to the office; and
  3. an employee who completed remaining work responsibilities from home after leaving the office to catch the last available public transportation route.
• According to the WHD, ordinary commuting constitutes a third category of non-compensable time—alongside bona fide meal periods and off-duty time—and does not automatically become compensable simply because it occurs after the employee has already begun working for the day. Thus, home-to-office or office-to-home travel may remain non-compensable even when it occurs during the workday, provided the travel primarily benefits the employee and retains the characteristics of an “ordinary” or “normal” commute.
• The WHD emphasized that its opinion does not alter longstanding rules that travel between worksites during the workday remains compensable and that any compensable work performed during a commute must be paid. The WHD further noted that its assessment is “strictly limited to ordinary commuter travel between home and work,” and reaffirmed its position that certain forms of employer-directed travel—such as emergency call-outs or special one-day assignments in another city—may remain compensable depending on the circumstances.

FLSA2026-10 – Issue: Must a field service engineer who travels directly from home to customer locations to install and service equipment be compensated for time spent receiving service requests, scheduling customer appointments, coordinating with other technicians, and commuting to the first job site?

• The WHD analyzed two scenarios to determine whether certain travel time was compensable worktime under the FLSA:
  1. At 7:00 a.m., a non-exempt employee begins receiving pages and contacting clients to schedule appointments (their own and other service engineers, as necessary) before leaving home at 8:00 a.m. to drive in an employer-provided vehicle to the first client appointment. While scheduling appointments between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., the employee also performs a mix of personal/preliminary activities such as drinking coffee and getting ready for the workday (including collecting tools).
  2. A non-exempt employee leaves home at 6:00 a.m. to drive to an 8:30 a.m. customer appointment. While commuting to the appointment, the employee receives pages and schedules appointments between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
• The WHD initially concluded that time a non-exempt employee spends receiving service requests through an employer's paging system before the employee performs any other work-related activities is likely not compensable, whether performed at home or during the commute, because it is incidental to traveling in an employer-provided vehicle. By contrast, calling customers to schedule appointments and arranging appointment details are compensable work activities because those tasks are required by, and primarily benefit, the employer. The WHD clarified that whether travel time to the customer location itself is compensable depends on whether the employer, rather than the employee, dictates the timing and manner of travel.
• With respect to the first scenario, the WHD concluded that the time spent traveling to the first appointment is compensable. The employee spends substantial time before the drive fulfilling service requests before leaving home, and then immediately drives to the first job site. Thus, the travel time is directed by the employer’s operational needs, and the employee lacks flexibility and freedom as to departure time and the ability to spend time on personal tasks. Because the work performed at home occurs immediately before the travel and immediately precedes work at the first job site, the travel functions as a continuation of the employee's workday rather than a routine commute.
• With respect to the second scenario, the WHD concluded that the time spent from 6:00 a.m. until at least 7:00 a.m. is ordinary home-to-work travel and not compensable. As noted, the employee’s workday commences once the employee begins calling clients to schedule appointments, and thus, the rest of the travel time is compensable. The WHD further clarified that performing integral job duties while driving imposes greater limitations on the employee’s control over the timing and manner of the trip than when those activities are performed at home. Consequently, the employee cannot exercise the freedom and flexibility ordinarily present in home-to-work travel.
• In sum, according to the WHD and consistent with FLSA 2026-9, ordinary travel time remains non-compensable, but employer-required work performed during travel may transform otherwise ordinary travel time into compensable hours worked. The controlling inquiry is whether the travel time predominantly benefits the employer or the employee.

Although these opinion letters provide useful guidance under the FLSA, not all states have adopted the Portal-to-Portal Act’s amendments to the FLSA (as we previously discussed here and here), which exclude from an employee’s compensable time preliminary and postliminary activities and were an underlying consideration in both DOL opinion letters. Accordingly, employers should continue to be mindful that state and local laws may impose different or more employee-favorable requirements regarding compensable work time and should not assume they are complying with all applicable laws simply by conforming to FLSA requirements. Additionally, the WHD’s determinations are based on the specific facts set forth in the opinion letters, and any new or different facts could result in a different determination.