The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued two pivotal opinion letters on Wednesday, July 23, 2026, offering crucial clarifications on what constitutes compensable working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These letters address specific scenarios involving midday commutes and pre-shift administrative tasks, providing much-needed guidance for employers grappling with the complexities of tracking hours worked in an increasingly flexible work environment. The pronouncements are expected to have significant implications for how businesses manage employee compensation, particularly for non-exempt workers whose work arrangements are evolving.
Midday Commutes: Flexibility Without Additional Pay
One of the most significant clarifications comes in response to an employer’s inquiry regarding the compensability of midday commutes. The employer, which manages a large non-exempt workforce, sought to offer employees greater flexibility by allowing them to work from home in the morning to avoid peak commute times, and then travel to the office for the remainder of the workday. Historically, concerns about the FLSA’s implications had prevented such arrangements, as employers feared being required to compensate employees for the travel time between home and the primary worksite within the same workday.
The DOL’s opinion letter, designated FLSA2026-9, directly addresses this concern. The agency 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 ruling provides a clear pathway for employers to offer flexible scheduling without incurring additional wage obligations, provided the commute remains a standard, employee-benefiting journey.
However, the DOL was careful to draw a distinction between ordinary commutes and travel that primarily benefits the employer. The agency cautioned that employees may be due pay for travel time in circumstances outside the ordinary, such as when an employee has left for the day and is recalled for an emergency. Furthermore, the DOL reiterated its long-standing position that travel between worksites during the workday remains compensable, underscoring that this new clarification does not alter that fundamental principle.
This clarification arrives at a time when employers are actively exploring hybrid and flexible work models. A 2025 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) indicated that over 65% of organizations had adopted some form of flexible work arrangement, with a significant portion reporting increased employee satisfaction and productivity. The DOL’s guidance in FLSA2026-9 offers employers the legal certainty needed to further implement such policies without jeopardizing FLSA compliance.
Pre-Shift Administrative Tasks and Compensable Travel
In a separate, but equally important, opinion letter (FLSA2026-10), the DOL addressed the compensability of pre-shift administrative tasks for an MRI engineer. This individual worked at client sites between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. but received service requests at home and scheduled the day’s client appointments before their official shift began. The employee utilized an employer-provided vehicle to travel to job sites and often made work-related phone calls during these drives.
The DOL determined that the time spent receiving service requests at home was not compensable, as it was deemed incidental to the primary use of an employer-provided vehicle for commuting. This aligns with the general principle that personal use of company vehicles, even if it involves receiving work-related communications, does not automatically trigger compensable time.
However, the agency found that the time spent scheduling appointments was indeed compensable. The DOL reasoned that this activity constituted the commencement of the employee’s workday. Crucially, the agency also ruled that the travel time to client sites was compensable in this specific scenario. The DOL cited the employee’s lack of freedom typically associated with commutes, noting that the employee sometimes took work calls during the drive, which indicated the travel was more than a simple personal commute. This suggests that when travel is intertwined with or directly facilitates work-related activities, it may be considered compensable.
The Evolving Landscape of Working Time
The DOL’s reliance on opinion letters to clarify employment law issues is a well-established practice. These letters, while not having the force of law, provide employers with significant guidance and can serve as a defense against FLSA claims if an employer has acted in good faith reliance on them. Employer representatives have historically favored this approach over alternative enforcement mechanisms, recognizing the potential for legal protection.
The FLSA, enacted in 1938, has long struggled to keep pace with technological advancements and evolving work structures. The concept of "hours worked" has been a persistent area of litigation and interpretation, particularly concerning travel time, training, and preliminary or postliminary activities. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics consistently shows an increase in jobs requiring travel or involving off-site work, making these clarifications particularly timely.
Analyzing the Implications
The DOL’s pronouncements in these two opinion letters carry significant implications for a wide range of industries, including technology, healthcare, field services, and any sector where flexible work arrangements or employee travel are common.
For employers, the clarification on midday commutes offers a clear framework for implementing more flexible scheduling without the fear of unintended wage liabilities. This could lead to greater adoption of hybrid models, potentially boosting employee morale and reducing operational costs associated with prolonged office presence.
Conversely, the ruling on the MRI engineer’s situation highlights the continued scrutiny on travel time and pre-shift activities. Employers must exercise due diligence in analyzing the nature of these activities and the degree of control or benefit derived by the employer. The distinction drawn between personal benefit and employer benefit in travel time is a critical factor for compliance.
Legal analysts suggest that these letters signal a continued focus by the DOL on ensuring that employees are adequately compensated for all time they are "suffering or permitted to work" under the FLSA. The agency’s emphasis on fact-specific scenarios underscores the importance of meticulous record-keeping and clear communication between employers and employees regarding work expectations and compensation policies.
Background and Context
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting workers in the U.S. The "hours worked" provision is central to the FLSA’s overtime requirements, mandating that non-exempt employees receive pay at one and a half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Determining what constitutes "hours worked" has been a complex area since the law’s inception, with numerous court cases and administrative interpretations shaping its application.
The concept of "travel time" has been particularly contentious. Generally, under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which amended the FLSA, activities "preliminary" or "postliminary" to the principal activity or activities which the employee is employed to perform are not considered part of the principal activity and therefore not compensable. However, the line between preliminary/postliminary and principal activities can be blurred, especially with modern work arrangements.
The DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is responsible for enforcing the FLSA. The WHD frequently issues opinion letters in response to specific employer inquiries. These letters are designed to provide guidance on how the WHD would interpret and enforce the law in a given situation. While not binding on courts, they carry significant weight and demonstrate the agency’s enforcement priorities. The DOL has historically used these opinion letters to address emerging workplace trends and provide clarity on complex legal issues. For instance, in the late 2010s, the DOL issued several opinion letters addressing the compensability of off-duty emails and smartphone use, reflecting the growing prevalence of mobile technology in the workplace.
The July 23, 2026, opinion letters build upon this tradition of providing regulatory clarity. The specific employer in FLSA2026-9, for example, operates in an industry that likely experiences significant demand for flexible work arrangements, possibly due to workforce demographics or operational needs. The MRI engineer in FLSA2026-10 represents a professional role where the boundaries between personal time and work time can easily become indistinct due to the nature of client-site work and the use of employer-provided resources.
Broader Impact and Future Considerations
These DOL pronouncements are likely to trigger a review of existing policies by employers nationwide. Human resources departments and legal counsel will need to analyze their current practices concerning employee travel, flexible scheduling, and the tracking of all work-related activities. The clarity provided by the DOL, particularly on midday commutes, could encourage further innovation in work arrangements, potentially leading to a more productive and satisfied workforce.
However, the emphasis on the employer’s benefit in travel time suggests that employers cannot simply label all travel as non-compensable without careful consideration of the specific circumstances. The DOL’s continued commitment to interpreting the FLSA in light of contemporary work realities signals a proactive approach to worker protections. As the nature of work continues to evolve, ongoing dialogue between employers, employees, and regulatory bodies will be essential to ensure fair and compliant labor practices. The DOL’s opinion letters serve as a crucial tool in this ongoing process, offering guidance that helps shape the future of employment law.
About the Author
