Opinion
Decided and Entered: July 19, 2001.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered January 31, 2000, upon a decision of the court in favor of the State.
Charles W. Manners Jr., Cooperstown, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Claimant, a construction superintendent for the Office of General Services, filed this claim seeking unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). Specifically, claimant maintains that the State, by "requiring" him to use a State vehicle to commute to and from his assigned work station, is obligated to pay him overtime for his commute time. Following a trial, the Court of Claim, in a thorough and well-reasoned decision, dismissed the claim ( 183 Misc.2d 382). Claimant appeals.
Prior to June 1996, claimant was reimbursed for daily commuting expenses to the tune of $200 per week. As a cost savings method, he was assigned a State vehicle and directed to use it for all reimbursable mileage.
While the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay employees for all work performed, under the Portal-to-Portal Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 251et seq.), time spent by an employee commuting to and from work, even in an employer-provided vehicle, is not compensable (see, 29 U.S.C. § 254 [a] [1]; 29 C.F.R. § 785.35; see also, Kavanagh v. Grand Union Co., 192 F.3d 269; Aiken v. City of Memphis, 190 F.3d 753, cert denied 528 U.S. 1157; Hellmers v. Town of Vestal, 969 F. Supp. 837; Reich v. Brenaman Elec. Serv., US Dist Ct, E.D. Pa, Mar. 28, 1997, Leomporra, J.). Moreover, any activity which precedes or follows an employee's principal activity is not compensable (see, 29 U.S.C. § 254 [a] [2]). Principal activity, in turn, is defined as an activity that is "an integral and indispensable part" of the employee's work duties (Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260, 261; see, Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 255). There being no dispute that claimant was not engaged in any work-related activity while commuting to and from his assigned work station — indeed, he testified that all he was "doing [during his commute] was operating the car" — let alone engaged in an "integral or indispensable" work-related activity — the Court of Claims properly determined that this travel time was not compensable (see generally, Bobo v. United States, 37 Fed Cl 690, affd 136 F.3d 1465;compare, Herman v. Rich Kramer Constr., 163 F.3d 602).
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.