The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued an opinion letter addressing when certain mid-day home-to-office travel by nonexempt employees may be excluded from compensable work time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

In Opinion Letter FLSA2026-9 (“Letter”) issued July 22, 2026, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) addressed a common issue arising in modern-day hybrid or flexible work environments: whether a nonexempt employee’s travel between home and the office becomes compensable simply because it occurs after the employee has already performed work from another location.

The employer requesting guidance sought clarification regarding three scenarios involving employees who split their workdays between home and the office: (1) an employee seeking to avoid rush-hour traffic by working at home in the early morning, driving into the office for core work hours, then returning home to resume working from home at the end of the day; (2) an employee performing additional early-morning work from home before reporting to the office; and (3) an employee leaving the office early to catch the last bus, before completing work from home.

The WHD concluded that the travel time in all three scenarios was not compensable work time under the FLSA because the commuting was otherwise normal or ordinary and primarily benefited the employees rather than the employer. The agency also clarified that an ordinary commute may be treated as a separate category of non-compensable time during the workday, in addition to bona fide meal breaks and off-duty time.

Key Takeaways

• An ordinary commute does not become compensable simply because it occurs during the workday.

The WHD emphasized that ordinary home-to-work travel has long been excluded from compensable work time under the FLSA. According to the agency, this principle applies even when an employee has already performed work earlier in the day from home, so long as the travel remains an otherwise normal or ordinary commute that primarily benefits the employee. The Letter clarifies that an ordinary commute may remain non-compensable even when it occurs between the employee’s first and last work activities of the day.

• Employee-focused flexibility matters.

A central theme of the Letter is whether the travel primarily benefits the employee or the employer. The WHD found that travel remains an ordinary commute where employees voluntarily choose to work part of the day at home for personal convenience, such as:

• Avoiding rush-hour traffic;
• Accommodating family obligations;
• Allowing time for home appointments; or
• Performing work remotely rather than extending time spent in the office.

In those circumstances, the travel generally benefits the employee and may be excluded from hours worked.

• Not all travel during the workday is excluded.

The Letter does not change longstanding rules requiring employers to compensate employees for certain travel time.

For example, travel generally remains compensable when:

• An employee travels between job sites during the workday;
• The employee performs work while traveling;
• The travel involves a special one-day assignment in another city; or
• The travel primarily benefits the employer rather than the employee.

Pennsylvania Law Considerations

Pennsylvania takes an expansive view of “hours worked.” In Heimbach, et al. v. Amazon.com et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the federal FLSA hours worked exceptions under the “Portal to Portal Act” and the de minimis doctrine, requiring Amazon employees to be compensated for time spent waiting in line for and undergoing post-shift security screenings. Notably, in this Letter, the WHD emphasizes that its opinion does not rely on the Portal-to-Portal Act, instead citing the long-standing, pre-Portal-to-Portal Act principle that ordinary home-to-work travel is not compensable work time. 

Cases applying the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PA MWA”) align with the WHD reasoning: ordinary home-to-work travel which is a normal incident of employment, when no work is performed, is generally not compensable. The Commonwealth’s website addressing general wage and hour questions also reflects this principle: “[i]f an employee leaves directly from home to the job site or vice versa it is not paid time.” Conversely, “time spent in traveling as part of the duties of the employee during normal working hours” is compensable work time under the PA MWA, such as when an employee is required to report to the employer’s establishment to clock in, load up, or perform similar work-related tasks before traveling.

What Employers Should Do

Employers with hybrid or flexible work arrangements should consider reviewing their wage-and-hour policies and timekeeping procedures to ensure they accurately distinguish between compensable work activities and ordinary commuting time. Although ordinary home-to-work commute time generally need not be treated as hours worked, employers must still maintain accurate records of all hours actually worked, and should track the timing or length of excluded mid-day commute periods depending on the employer’s timekeeping practices.

Employers should also:

• Maintain clear policies requiring employees to record all hours worked, regardless of location;
• Ensure employees understand when travel time must be reported;
• Carefully evaluate situations involving required travel, special assignments, or work performed while commuting; and
• Review hybrid-work arrangements to confirm compliance with applicable federal, state, and local wage-and-hour laws and internal policies.

Looking Ahead

The Letter reflects the DOL’s recognition that modern workplaces increasingly allow employees the flexibility to move between home and office during the same workday. The WHD guidance may give employers additional comfort when offering employee-driven hybrid flexibility to nonexempt employees without automatically converting otherwise ordinary commuting time into compensable working time.

Employers should remember, however, that the analysis remains fact-specific and that the Letter addresses federal FLSA requirements only. State wage-and-hour laws may impose different or more protective requirements, particularly when travel is directed by the employer, involves work duties, or primarily benefits the employer.

Barley Snyder will continue to monitor developments as they occur. If you have any questions regarding the FLSA, hybrid work policies, or employee travel time, please reach out to attorney Jill Sebest Welch, Hyo Jin (Jinnie) Lee, Michael Crocenzi or any member of Barley Snyder’s Employment Practice Group.

---