The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued two significant opinion letters clarifying the parameters of compensable working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), offering crucial guidance to employers navigating the complexities of employee travel and midday commutes. Released on Wednesday, July 23, 2026, these letters address specific scenarios, aiming to provide greater certainty for businesses seeking to offer flexible work arrangements without inadvertently incurring wage and hour liabilities.
Midday Commutes and Employee Benefit
One of the most anticipated clarifications addresses the compensability of midday commutes. In opinion letter FLSA2026-9, the DOL responded to an employer with a substantial nonexempt workforce that sought to allow employees to work from home in the morning and then travel to a primary worksite for the remainder of the day. The employer’s primary concern was that such flexibility might be construed as requiring compensation for the travel time between home and the office, due to the potential application of FLSA regulations.
The DOL’s determination in this case is a significant win for employers looking to enhance employee flexibility. The agency explicitly stated that "any time employees spend traveling between their home and their primary worksite within a workday may be excluded from recorded worktime, as long as such travel is otherwise a ‘normal’ or ‘ordinary’ commute that primarily benefits the employee." This guidance suggests that the standard daily commute, even if broken up by a period of remote work, does not automatically trigger compensable hours, provided it aligns with the employee’s personal convenience and routine rather than solely serving an employer’s directive.
This clarification is particularly relevant in an era where hybrid and remote work models are becoming increasingly prevalent. Many businesses have been hesitant to allow employees to switch between home and office locations within a single workday, fearing that any deviation from a standard commute would necessitate payment for the interim travel. The DOL’s stance offers a pathway for employers to offer such flexibility, potentially reducing employee stress related to rush hour traffic and improving work-life balance, without incurring additional payroll costs.
However, the DOL also issued a critical caution: this exemption from compensation does not apply to travel that primarily benefits the employer. An example provided is when an employee has left for the day and is subsequently called back to the workplace for an emergency. In such instances, the travel time would likely be considered compensable. Furthermore, the agency reiterated its longstanding position that travel between multiple worksites during the workday, as opposed to travel from home to a primary worksite, remains compensable.
MRI Engineer’s Travel and Scheduling Time
The second opinion letter, FLSA2026-10, delves into the compensability of time for an MRI engineer whose role involved working at client sites between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. This engineer also received service requests at home and was responsible for scheduling their daily client appointments before their official shift began. The employer-provided vehicle was used to travel to job sites, and the engineer often made work-related phone calls during these drives.
In this scenario, the DOL made a nuanced determination regarding the various activities. The time spent receiving service requests at home was deemed non-compensable, as it was considered incidental to the primary benefit of having an employer-provided vehicle for commuting purposes. This suggests that passive reception of information at home, without active engagement or performance of work duties, might not qualify as compensable time.
Conversely, the time dedicated to scheduling appointments was classified as compensable. The DOL reasoned that this activity constituted the commencement of the employee’s workday. Furthermore, the agency concluded that the drive time itself was compensable. This was based on the observation that the employee lacked the typical freedom associated with a standard commute, often engaging in work-related calls during transit. The lack of autonomy and the performance of work-related tasks during travel elevated the drive time from a personal commute to a compensable work activity.
This distinction highlights the DOL’s focus on the degree of control and the nature of the activity performed. When travel is intertwined with work duties or when the employee’s freedom is restricted, the time spent traveling is more likely to be considered compensable under the FLSA.
Background and Historical Context of DOL Opinion Letters
The DOL’s use of opinion letters to clarify complex employment law issues is not new. These letters have historically served as a mechanism for the agency to provide guidance on fact-specific questions related to various labor laws, including the FLSA. Employer representatives have often viewed this program favorably, as opinion letters can offer a degree of protection against litigation. If an employer acts in good faith reliance on a DOL opinion letter, it can potentially serve as a defense in a wage and hour lawsuit.
However, the effectiveness and interpretation of these letters have evolved. In previous years, concerns have been raised about the clarity and applicability of some opinion letters. For instance, in a 2025 HR Dive article, employer representatives noted that while opinion letters are flawed, they remain the most accessible option for obtaining formal guidance compared to other regulatory avenues. The current letters, issued in July 2026, appear to be an effort to provide more concrete answers to pressing questions faced by modern employers.
The Evolving Landscape of Compensable Work Time
The determination of whether employee travel time is compensable under the FLSA has long been a complex area of employment law. Federal regulations and judicial interpretations have established that not all time spent traveling by an employee is considered work time. Generally, time spent commuting from home to the regular place of business is not compensable. However, this general rule has several exceptions.
For instance, under the FLSA’s "portal-to-portal" provisions, travel time is compensable if it is "outside the normal commute" and is "undertaken for the employer’s benefit." This can include travel between two different worksites during the workday, travel to a special, temporary worksite, or travel required by the employer for business purposes, such as attending a mandatory off-site meeting or training.
The distinction between an employee’s own benefit and the employer’s benefit is often the deciding factor. A commute that allows an employee to reach their primary worksite and begin their tasks is generally seen as benefiting the employee. However, if the employer mandates a specific route, requires the use of a company vehicle for non-commute purposes, or directs the employee to perform work-related tasks during the commute, the analysis shifts.
The DOL’s fact sheets and opinion letters offer detailed guidance, but as these recent letters underscore, each scenario requires careful examination. The ability to work from home, for example, introduces a new layer of complexity to the traditional commute paradigm. The DOL’s response in FLSA2026-9 indicates a willingness to adapt the interpretation of "normal commute" to accommodate these evolving work structures, as long as the primary benefit remains with the employee.
Broader Implications for Employers and Employees
These new opinion letters from the DOL have several significant implications for both employers and employees.
For employers, the clarity provided in FLSA2026-9 offers a much-needed framework for implementing more flexible work arrangements. Businesses can now more confidently allow employees to transition between home and office locations within a workday, potentially boosting employee morale and productivity. However, it also reinforces the need for meticulous record-keeping and a clear understanding of the distinction between employee-benefiting travel and employer-benefiting travel. Companies must ensure that any travel mandated by the employer or that involves the performance of work duties is accurately recorded and compensated.
For employees, these letters confirm that their time spent commuting, particularly when it’s for their own convenience and doesn’t involve performing work duties, is not automatically compensable. However, the clarification in FLSA2026-10 serves as a reminder that activities like scheduling or making work calls during travel can indeed lead to compensable time. This underscores the importance for employees to be aware of their rights and responsibilities regarding work time and to accurately report all hours worked, including any travel that may be considered compensable.
The DOL’s continued engagement through opinion letters demonstrates a commitment to addressing the practical challenges of modern employment. As work arrangements continue to diversify, it is likely that further clarifications and guidance will be necessary to ensure fair and compliant labor practices across the nation. The July 2026 letters represent a crucial step in this ongoing dialogue, offering employers and employees alike a clearer understanding of what constitutes compensable working time in an increasingly dynamic work environment. The ability for employers to offer flexibility while remaining compliant with wage and hour laws is a delicate balance, and these opinion letters provide essential tools for navigating that equilibrium.
About the Author
