Buzek v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that cases not involving employee commutes are not “on point” in determining whether commute-related activities are compensable
• discussing the amount of time the employee spent on his “end-of-day communication” based on deposition testimony
• home-based technicians’ transportation of tools in company car (and completion of end-of-day reports at home) were incidental to commute and thus noncompensable
• field service technician's commute, during which he carried tools and used a company vehicle, is noncompensable under the FLSA and Portal-to-Portal Act
• home-based technicians’ transportation of tools in company car (and completion of end-of-day reports at home) were incidental to commute and thus noncompensable
• “It is of course a truism that statutory construction begins with the ‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning’ of the words of the statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).