The United States Department of Labor (DOL) has released two significant opinion letters, FLSA2026-9 and FLSA2026-10, providing much-anticipated clarity on what constitutes compensable working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), particularly for employees navigating hybrid work models and those in mobile service roles. Issued on July 22, 2026, and published the following day, these letters address specific, fact-pattern questions, offering employers and employees a definitive framework for understanding wage and hour obligations in an evolving work landscape. The guidance comes at a critical juncture as businesses continue to adapt to flexible work arrangements and manage diverse workforces across various locations.
Understanding the Fair Labor Standards Act and Compensable Time
At its core, the FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments. A central tenet of the FLSA is the requirement for employers to pay employees for all hours worked. However, defining "hours worked" has become increasingly complex with the advent of remote work, hybrid schedules, and mobile professional roles.
The Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, an amendment to the FLSA, generally excludes from compensable time activities that are "preliminary to or postliminary to" the employee’s principal activities, such as ordinary commuting time. This act was designed to address Supreme Court rulings that had expanded compensable time to include activities like walking to a workstation after clocking in. Over the decades, the DOL has frequently issued guidance, including opinion letters and fact sheets, to interpret these statutes in the context of specific scenarios, aiming to provide practical application for businesses and ensure fair compensation for workers. The complexity often arises when activities that seem like commuting or personal time begin to blend with job duties, blurring the lines of when the workday truly begins or ends.
Chronology of Key Events Leading to the Guidance
The issuance of these opinion letters on July 22, 2026, is part of a broader trend by the DOL in recent years to address specific employment law questions through this mechanism. This approach is generally favored by employer representatives, who view opinion letters as a valuable resource that can serve as a defense against litigation by demonstrating good-faith compliance with FLSA interpretations. The process typically involves an employer or employee submitting a detailed, fact-specific request to the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), which then reviews the circumstances and issues an official interpretation.
- May 15, 2026: The illustrative image of commuters at Penn Station highlights the daily reality of travel that forms the backdrop for these discussions, particularly regarding the nuances of "ordinary" commutes.
- July 22, 2026: The Department of Labor issues opinion letters FLSA2026-9 and FLSA2026-10, formally addressing the submitted inquiries.
- July 23, 2026: The letters are officially published, making the guidance publicly accessible to employers, HR professionals, and legal counsel across the nation.
This timeline underscores the DOL’s commitment to providing timely clarification as the nature of work continues to evolve, pushing the boundaries of traditional wage and hour definitions.
Detailed Analysis of Midday Commutes (FLSA2026-9)
The first opinion letter, FLSA2026-9, tackles a prevalent issue in the era of hybrid work: whether employees must be paid for traveling between their home and a primary worksite in the middle of a workday. The specific inquiry came from an employer managing a large non-exempt workforce. These employees do not typically travel as part of their regular job duties and are afforded the flexibility to work from home when business needs allow. However, the employer had previously prohibited employees from working in more than one location within a single workday due to concerns about FLSA requirements to compensate for midday commuting. For instance, an employee was not permitted to work from home in the morning to avoid rush hour traffic and then transition to the office at lunchtime to complete the workday on-site. The employer sought to offer this flexibility without incurring additional compensation obligations.
In its response, the DOL provided a clear affirmation: "[A]ny 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 conclusion offers significant relief to employers looking to implement or expand flexible hybrid work policies. The key differentiator here is the "primary benefit" test. If the midday commute is undertaken primarily for the employee’s convenience – such as avoiding peak traffic, managing personal appointments, or simply preferring a split schedule – it generally remains non-compensable.
However, the DOL also included crucial caveats. The agency warned that employees might be due pay for such time in circumstances that fall outside the "ordinary" or primarily benefit the employer. A salient example provided was when an employee has already gone home for the day and is called back to the office for an emergency. In such a scenario, the travel time would likely be compensable because it is driven by an unforeseen business need and primarily benefits the employer. Furthermore, the DOL explicitly reiterated its longstanding position that travel between worksite to worksite during the workday remains compensable. This distinction is vital: an employee traveling from their home office to the company’s main office for personal preference is different from an employee traveling from the company’s main office to a client site, or from one client site to another, which would typically be compensable work time.
Implications for Hybrid Work Models: This guidance is a boon for organizations embracing or considering hybrid work models. It clarifies that offering employees flexibility to split their workday between home and office does not automatically trigger additional wage obligations for the transit time. This could encourage more widespread adoption of hybrid models, potentially improving employee morale, reducing commute-related stress, and enhancing work-life balance. However, employers must ensure their policies clearly define what constitutes a "normal" or "ordinary" commute and educate employees on these distinctions to avoid misunderstandings.
Detailed Analysis of Mobile Professional’s Workday (FLSA2026-10)
The second opinion letter, FLSA2026-10, addressed a more complex scenario involving an MRI engineer whose workday involved pre-shift administrative tasks and travel to client sites. This engineer typically worked at client locations from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. However, before their official shift, they received service requests at home and were responsible for scheduling the day’s client appointments. The employee then drove an employer-provided vehicle to the various job sites, often making work-related phone calls during the drive. The core question revolved around which of these activities constituted compensable work time.
The DOL’s detailed breakdown offered several key determinations:
- Receiving Service Requests at Home: The agency concluded that the time spent receiving service requests at home was not compensable. This was deemed incidental to the use of an employer-provided vehicle for commuting, implying that merely receiving information, without engaging in active work, does not trigger compensability.
- Scheduling Appointments: Crucially, the time spent scheduling appointments was deemed compensable. The DOL reasoned that this activity amounted to the beginning of the employee’s workday. Scheduling is an active, job-specific duty that directly contributes to the day’s productivity and is not merely preparatory to commuting.
- Drive Time to Job Sites: Because the scheduling activity marked the official start of the employee’s workday, and given that the employee lacked the typical freedom associated with ordinary commutes (often taking work calls during the drive), the drive time itself was also deemed compensable. This decision reinforces the principle that once an employee’s workday has begun with principal activities, subsequent travel between work locations or for work-related purposes generally falls within compensable hours.
Implications for Field Service and Mobile Roles: This guidance is critical for industries that rely heavily on mobile workforces, such as field service technicians, sales representatives, and healthcare professionals who travel between patient sites. It clarifies that even seemingly minor pre-shift administrative tasks, if they are integral to the job and directly contribute to the employer’s business, can transform personal time or commute time into compensable work time. Employers in these sectors must meticulously review their policies regarding pre-shift duties, travel time, and the use of company vehicles to ensure compliance. Accurate timekeeping becomes even more paramount, requiring robust systems to capture these nuanced work periods.
The Enduring Role of DOL Opinion Letters
DOL opinion letters serve a vital function in clarifying the intricacies of federal labor laws. Unlike broad regulations or fact sheets, opinion letters provide a specific interpretation of the FLSA (or other labor laws) based on a unique set of facts presented by an employer or employee. This specificity is precisely what makes them so valuable to businesses seeking to ensure compliance and avoid costly litigation. When an employer can demonstrate that they have acted in good faith reliance on a DOL opinion letter directly applicable to their situation, it can provide a powerful defense against wage and hour claims.
The availability and use of these letters have varied over different administrations. Employer representatives have consistently advocated for their continued use, citing their practical utility compared to other forms of guidance. While not having the force of law in the same way regulations do, they represent the official stance of the agency on particular scenarios, guiding compliance efforts nationwide. Their existence underscores the principle that determining compensable travel time, or any "hours worked" question, often requires a detailed, fact-specific analysis rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. This is why the DOL continues to emphasize that employers should always look closely at each specific scenario and not assume broad applicability.
Broader Impact and Implications for Employers
The increasing complexity of work arrangements – driven by technological advancements, evolving employee expectations, and the lingering effects of global events – has placed significant pressure on human resources and payroll departments. These new DOL opinion letters are timely and crucial for several reasons:
- Enhanced Compliance Clarity: The guidance provides much-needed clarity, reducing ambiguity around specific travel and pre-shift activities. This enables HR departments to develop more precise policies and training programs for managers and employees.
- Mitigation of Litigation Risk: By adhering to these interpretations, employers can significantly reduce their exposure to wage and hour lawsuits, which can be costly in terms of back pay, liquidated damages, and legal fees. Proactive compliance based on official guidance is a key risk management strategy.
- Support for Flexible Work Models: The clarity on midday commutes provides a stronger legal foundation for organizations wishing to offer greater flexibility, potentially boosting employee satisfaction and retention in a competitive labor market.
- Challenges in Time Tracking: The rulings, particularly FLSA2026-10, highlight the ongoing challenge of accurately tracking time for diverse workforces. Employers of mobile professionals must implement robust timekeeping systems that capture all compensable activities, including preparatory work and travel that falls within the workday. This might necessitate new technological solutions or more rigorous manual processes.
- Need for Internal Policy Review: All organizations, especially those with hybrid or mobile workforces, should undertake a comprehensive review of their current wage and hour policies, employee handbooks, and manager training programs to ensure alignment with these latest DOL interpretations.
Expert Perspectives and Future Outlook
Employment law attorneys, particularly those advising management, have consistently emphasized that determining compensable time is rarely straightforward. "On the road again: When travel time is compensable work time" – a sentiment often echoed by legal experts – highlights the intricate nature of these decisions. The DOL’s fact sheets and opinion letters are invaluable tools, but as Wednesday’s letters illustrate, compensability decisions demand a meticulous examination of each specific scenario, focusing on the "primary benefit" test and whether activities are integral to the employee’s principal duties.
From an employee advocacy perspective, while these letters clarify certain scenarios where time is not compensable, they also reinforce the importance of protecting workers from unpaid labor. The detailed analysis in FLSA2026-10, for example, ensures that pre-shift work activities and associated travel for mobile professionals are properly compensated, preventing potential exploitation.
As the future of work continues to unfold, with innovations in remote collaboration and evolving business models, the demand for clear, timely guidance from regulatory bodies like the DOL will only grow. Employers are encouraged to remain vigilant, consult legal counsel when necessary, and proactively adapt their practices to ensure full compliance with the FLSA and other relevant labor laws. The latest opinion letters from the Department of Labor represent a crucial step in providing that essential clarity, helping businesses navigate the complexities of compensable working time in the modern economy.
