Grush v. United States

374 F. App'x 17 (Fed. Cir. 2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · December 10, 2009

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit grants the government's motion to affirm a Court of Federal Claims judgment denying overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for time spent commuting in a government-owned vehicle. The court relies on its precedents in Easter, Adams, and Bobo, lifts the stay, denies the motion to continue the stay and consolidate the case, and orders each side to bear its own costs.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the Court
Lourie; Friedman; Newman
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
December 10, 2009
Procedural posture
The United States moved for summary affirmance of the Court of Federal Claims' judgment, while Grush opposed affirmance and moved to continue a briefing stay and consolidate the case with other cases.
Standard of review
Summary disposition is appropriate when one party's position is clearly correct as a matter of law and no substantial question regarding the appeal's outcome exists.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Christopher J. Grush v. United States
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurewage and hourflsafederal employment law

Practice areas

Federal employment lawEmployment lawWage and hour

Questions Presented

  1. Whether federal employees required to drive government-owned vehicles between home and work are entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for that travel time.
  2. Whether the Federal Circuit should summarily affirm the Court of Federal Claims' judgment under controlling precedent.
  3. Whether the stay of the briefing schedule should be continued and the case consolidated with other cases.

Holdings

  1. Federal employees are not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for time spent driving between home and work in a government-owned vehicle under the circumstances presented.
  2. Summary disposition and affirmance were appropriate because controlling precedent made the government's position clearly correct as a matter of law and presented no substantial question regarding the appeal's outcome.
  3. The motion to continue the stay of the briefing schedule and consolidate the case with other cases was denied.

Key quotations

The Court of Federal Claims in this ease properly relied on Adams and Bobo and held that overtime pay is not permitted for such an activity in this case. (17)
Under the circumstances, we determine that affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is required by our precedent. (17)

Factual background

Grush was a federal employee who sought overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for time spent driving between his home and workplace in a government-owned vehicle. The government required employees in the relevant circumstances to use government vehicles for that travel. The Court of Federal Claims denied the claim based on Federal Circuit precedent holding that such commuting time is not compensable under the FLSA.

Procedural history

The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment for the United States, holding that federal employees required to use government vehicles for commuting are not entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for that travel time. On appeal, the Federal Circuit granted the government's motion for affirmance, lifted the stay of the briefing schedule, affirmed the judgment, and denied Grush's motion to continue the stay and consolidate.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…