Employers Assurance: 11th Circuit Clarifies Compensable Work Time Under Portal-to-Portal Act

Takeaways

• In Villarino et al. v. Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc., time spent waiting at a temporary-labor agency’s location to then travel in agency-provided transportation to a jobsite was not compensable because the activities were not integral and indispensable to the workers’ primary duties covered by the Portal-to-Portal Act. 
• Similarly, time spent collecting and returning agency-provided tools to the agency also was not compensable because the employer’s tools were not indispensable to the workers’ duties.
• The 11th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, found the agency was entitled to deduct from the workers’ pay the cost of the transportation it provided because the transportation was a service for the benefit of employees, not the employer.

Related link

• Villarino et al. v. Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc.

Article

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a temporary labor agency was not required to pay workers for the time they spent in employer-provided transit from the labor hall where they picked up work assignments or the time spent waiting for that transit. Villarino et al. v. Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc., No. 23-10645 (Dec. 5, 2025). The agency also did not have to compensate workers for the time they spent collecting and returning employer-provided tools to the labor hall. The appeals court concluded these duties were not integral and indispensable to the workers’ principal activities and, therefore, the time spent engaged in these activities was not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over federal courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.

Background

A temporary labor agency offered optional transportation from the labor hall where workers were required to report to check on available jobs and pick up job tickets. The agency also provided tools at the labor hall for workers’ use on those jobs. For workers who utilize the agency’s van or carpool rides, the agency deducted the costs of the transportation.

A group of workers filed suit, claiming they should have been paid for the time they spent waiting for transportation, traveling to sites, and collecting and returning tools to the labor hall.

A district court found the time in question was not integral and indispensable to the workers’ primary work activities and, therefore, was not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act.

Appellate Court: ‘Integral’ and ‘Indispensable’

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision, concluding that the travel time was not compensable merely because the workers were required to report to the labor hall.

The time spent waiting for transportation and traveling was not integral and indispensable to their duties because the workers were free to go directly to the jobsite using their own transportation.

The appeals court looked to the Department of Labor (DOL) Field Operations Handbook and the DOL’s directive that such time is not compensable when there is a clear understanding by the employee that only the time spent working at jobsites is compensable. The court also cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions in which waiting time was found compensable, explaining these scenarios were readily distinguishable.

Finally, the time spent picking up and returning tools also was not compensable because the tools were not an indispensable part of the workers’ duties. Some of the jobs did not require the use of tools, some jobsites supplied the needed tools, and the employees had the option to bring their own tools, the appeals court observed.

The workers also claimed that the costs of the agency-provided transportation were improperly deducted from their pay. However, the appeals court held that the agency was entitled to deduct these costs because the transportation provided was not for the employer’s benefit; it was an optional service made available to the workers, who were free to choose other transportation options. The appeals court cited DOL regulations that make clear that ordinary commuting of this type is a benefit to employees, not employers.

Consistent Court Decisions

The Eleventh Circuit’s latest decision aligns with a nonprecedential ruling issued earlier this year by an appellate panel. In that case, brought by plumbers and apprentices for a plumbing contractor, the appeals court concluded that the time the workers spent traveling to and from the shop and the day’s jobsites in company trucks was not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The panel was swayed by the fact that some of the company’s plumbers and apprentices did not report to the shop but traveled directly from their homes to the jobsite. Consequently, the court found that reporting to the shop and driving a company truck to and from the jobsite was not integral and indispensable to the employees’ principal activities and, therefore, was not compensable time. McAnally v. Alabama Plumbing Contr. LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6658 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025).

Together, the decisions provide assurance for employers operating in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia that courts can be expected to adhere to the Portal-to-Portal Act’s boundaries defining when pre- and post-work time is compensable.

* * *

Please contact your Jackson Lewis attorney if you have questions about whether employees’ work activities are compensable under the FLSA or the laws of the state in which you have operations.