Triable Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Adjudication of Plaintiffs' Claim of Entitlement to Wages and Expenses for Commute Time

The Sixth Appellate District reversed a grant of summary adjudication and remanded. The court held that there were triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiffs' commute time was compensable as hours worked and whether their commute expenses were compensable as necessary business expenses that should be borne by their employer.

Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A. provides business printing, copying, and scanning products and services. Service technicians employed by Konica maintain and repair copiers and other devices at the customer's site. Konica supplies the technicians with tools and parts, which the technicians transport in their personal vehicles to the customer work sites. The technicians generally travel directly from their homes to the work sites, and return directly home at the end of the day. Technicians Michael Oliver and Norris Cagonot filed a putative class action against Konica, seeking (1) unpaid wages for time spent by technicians commuting to and from home, and (2) reimbursement for mileage incurred during the morning and evening commutes.

The trial court granted Konica's motion for summary adjudication on both issues, finding that plaintiffs' commute time was not compensable as "hours worked" and that plaintiffs were not entitled to reimbursement for commute mileage.

The court of appeal reversed, holding that there were triable issues of fact as to both of plaintiffs' claims. First, if carrying tools and parts in a technician's personal vehicle during the commute was optional, then the technician was not subject to Konica's control during that time. Further, even if a service technician was required---either strictly speaking or as a practical matter---to carry tools and parts during the commute, the technician would not be subject to Konica's control during the commute if he or she was able to use that time effectively for the technician's own purposes. On the other hand, if a technician was required during the commute to carry a volume of tools and parts that did not allow his or her to use the commute time effectively for the technician's own purposes, then the technician would be deemed subject to Konica's control during that time for purposes of determining hours worked and entitlement to wages. The same  factors would decide whether the technicians were entitled to reimbursement for commute mileage. The court remanded with directions to deny Konica's motion for summary adjudication.

Oliver v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., June 2, 2020