Conneticut’s Travel Advisory Quarantine has been among the most confusing of the orders to arise from the pandemic.  No doubt that it was not intended to be that complicated.

But the last few weeks have had change after change made to the rules.  And then came the announcement last week that Rhode Island was on

You may have noticed that this blog has been a little quiet of late.  Like a lot of people, I’m pretty sure that after four months of non-stop pandemic-related employment law work, I had reached a breaking point.

And so I took vacation last week. Of course, like a lot of you, we didn’t go

So if last Tuesday’s post about the latest Connecticut Supreme Court decision on travel time was for employers, this post is for the ones who love the nuances of the law.

Dan Klau on his Appealingly Brief blog did a deep dive into the decision. And it wasn’t pretty.

Commuting at 1964 Worlds Fair

The issue Dan highlights is this: The Connecticut Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) interpretation of its own regulation on travel time was first rejected because that interpretation had not been time-tested and was not the product of formal rule-making procedures.

But it was also rejected because the Court said the agency’s interpretation was also not reasonable. Dan questions this:

The DOL based its interpretation of its regulation on a 1995 opinion letter of the United States Department of Labor concerning travel time under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. The DOL expressly referenced that letter in a written guide it published, “A Guide to Wage and Workplace Standards.” (The link is to the 2014 revision, which appears to contain the same relevant text (see p. 38) at issue in Sarrazin.) The Court noted that Congress had rejected that position (on policy grounds) in 1996, “yet the department’s handbook inexplicably fails to acknowledge the questionable history of the 1995 opinion letter. . . .” This, according to the Court, is what made the DOL’s interpretation of its own regulation unreasonable.

I fail to see why the DOL’s statement that it interpreted its own regulation in accord with the 1995 opinion letter means that its interpretation is “unreasonable.” It seems to me that the question of reasonableness turns on the “fit” between the 1995 opinion letter and the text of the regulation, not on whether Congress, as a policy matter, disagreed with the 1995 opinion letter. Congress’s intentions are certainly relevant to federal law, but not to the reasonableness of the DOL’s interpretation of its own regulation. Employment lawyers, what say you?

There’s more, of course, to this story. It actually starts with a 1994 US Department of Labor Opinion letter which ruled that the time spent by an employee traveling from home to the first work assignment, or returning home from the last assignment, in an employer provided vehicle was similar to that of traveling between jobs during the day and therefore represented a principal activity, which must be compensated. No compensation would be required in cases where employees used their own personal vehicles.


Continue Reading CTDOL’s Interpretation of Travel Time Not “Reasonable”; What Happens Next?

Mileage Reimbursement

I’m often asked what some of my most popular posts are on the blog.  Surprisingly, one topic that always seems to generate interest is the mileage reimbursement rate.  I’m not quite sure why.

In any event, the new rate became effective January 1, 2012.  Remember, this is the 

George Clooney famously made business travel look (somewhat) cool in the movie, Up in the Air.

Clooney’s character was single (really, would you expect otherwise?) and business travel was a bit glamorous (though a bit tedious as well).

Perhaps not surprisingly, absent from the movie was a discussion of whether business travel could be the