Skip to main content

Justin Griffin v. S&B Engineers and Constructors

5th CircuitJanuary 11, 2013No. 12-40382Cited 7 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Stewart, King, Clement
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
3710 Fair Labor Standards Act
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of S&B Engineers, holding that travel time on mandatory buses from a remote parking lot to the work site was not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act because it constituted non-compensable commuting activity excluded under the Portal to Portal Act.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Justin Griffin sued his employer, S&B Engineers and Constructors, claiming he should have been paid for time spent traveling on company buses. Griffin was required to park at a remote lot and take a mandatory bus ride to reach his actual work site. He argued this travel time counted as work hours under federal wage laws and that he should be compensated for it. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled against Griffin and sided with the company. The judges determined that the bus ride from the parking lot to the work site was considered regular commuting, not work time. They applied a federal law called the Portal to Portal Act, which generally excludes travel time to and from work from being paid time, even when employers require specific transportation arrangements. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling clarifies that workers may not be entitled to pay for certain types of required travel, even when employers control the transportation method. Workers should understand that mandatory bus rides from parking areas to work sites are typically considered unpaid commuting time. However, other types of work-related travel during the day might still qualify for compensation, so the specific circumstances matter greatly.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.