Ingram v. County Of Bucks

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that on-call time was non-compensable, in part, because plaintiff employees could easily trade shifts in order to pursue their own personal activities
• listing the first factor as “whether the employee may . . . leave home”
• “We recognize that these activities may not represent the full range of activities in which the [plaintiffs] would like to engage”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).