Graham v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “Section 4(a)(1) explicitly excludes ordinary commuting time from FLSA coverage[,]” and asking whether commutes in question were integral to employees’ principal duties and therefore beyond reach of Portal Act’s commute time compensation exception
• characterizing preliminary or postliminary activities as those tasks “spent predominantly in the employees’ own interests”
• “The activity could also be time covered by the statutes if it is compensable under the terms of a contract or based on custom or practice.”
• “Though several courts have addressed the issue of home care for police canines, the issue of whether transporting the animals to and from work is compensable has not been squarely addressed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).