In the landmark 2022 case Amaya v. DGS Construction, LLC, the Maryland Court of Appeals (since renamed the Supreme Court of Maryland) ruled that non-exempt employees may be entitled to compensation for time spent travelling to and from work under certain conditions pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”). Amaya has far-reaching implications for the treatment of employee travel time as “compensable work,” which is subject to wage protections (and penalties) under the MWHL.
As background, under the Maryland law employees are entitled to be compensated for “hours of work.” If an employer fails to pay employees for compensable work time, employees may sue for damages and attorneys’ fees that far exceed the original amounts of unpaid time, serving as a clear deterrent for non-compliance.
In Amaya, the Court addressed the specific question whether travel time between an employer’s parking lot and a construction worksite was compensable under the MWHL. The employer required employees to report to a specified parking lot and then take a shuttle to the construction site (and in reverse at the end of the day). The employer did not compensate the employees for the time spent waiting for or riding on the shuttle. The employees were not permitted to work on the construction site if they did not timely get on the shuttle. The Court ruled that because the parking lot served as a “prescribed workplace,” employees were on the clock once they arrived and were thus entitled to be compensated.
Amaya highlighted the complexities of the applicability of Maryland’s labor laws to different employment situations. Most importantly, Amaya clarified that the MWHL does not incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act of 1946 (“PPA”), which amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) to exclude compensation for employee travel time to and from a job site (see 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)). The Court reasoned that although the MWHL is similar to the FLSA, it is not a perfect mirror and does not incorporate the PPA. Accordingly, the Court reasoned that the MWHL contemplates that some employee travel time is subject to compensation requirements (just like the FLSA required before the PPA amendment). Amaya identified three circumstances when an employee’s travel time is considered “hours of work” and is thus compensable under MWHL: when the employee is required to be “(1) on the employer’s premises, (2) on duty, or (3) at a prescribed workplace.” The Court did not define “prescribed workplace,” but it can be reasonably interpreted to include any specified location designated by an employer to which an employee is required to report for work—including travel time between job sites as discussed in the Code of Maryland Regulations at 09.21.41.10A.
Amaya emphasizes the need for Maryland employers to carefully review and potentially update payroll practices to ensure compliance with the MWHL. There has been little development of the Amaya standard in the courts since 2022, but the next test case is always one employment dispute away. And the General Assembly as yet has not seen a need to further conform the MWHL with the FLSA, despite the compliance burden benefits for employers of doing so. Therefore, simply assuming that even rigorous compliance with the FLSA is enough to comply with the MWHL is now objectively problematic and can lead to negative financial and reputational consequences for employers.
Liff, Walsh and Simmons’ Labor and Employment Group continually tracks labor and employment developments that may impact you or your business. For questions please contact Dave Dorey, partner and head of the Group.
This alert provides general information and is not a full analysis of the matters discussed. It may not be relied on as legal advice. Dave Dorey, a Liff, Walsh & Simmons partner licensed to practice law in Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, and California, contributed to the content of this alert.
