When Does the Compensable Workday Begin Under the FLSA?
Workplaces have evolved significantly since Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) and courts are increasingly being asked to address how the law applies to modern work environments and technology-driven job duties. A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio highlights an important and unsettled question: when does the compensable workday begin under the FLSA?
In Lott v. Recker Consulting LLC et al., the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor without a trial. Courts grant this type of motion when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the law entitles one party to judgment.
On September 4, 2025, the court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The ruling addresses, among other things, whether employees must be compensated for time spent performing required pre- and post-shift activities necessary to carry out their principal job duties.
The Facts and Arguments of Lott v. Recker Consulting LLC
Plaintiff Kiara Lott, on behalf of herself and similarly situated Patient Care Associates (“PCAs”), alleged that her employer, a healthcare call center, failed to pay wages owed under the FLSA and Ohio law. The PCAs worked as remote, non-exempt, hourly employees with the primary responsibility of handling calls from patients using employer-provided computers and computer systems and specialized software.
To perform their job duties, the PCAs were required to complete a series of work tasks before they could begin handling calls or become “phone ready” by the start of their scheduled shift. These tasks included starting their computers, connecting into a VPN (a security enhancement system), and logging into multiple applications that they needed to receive and manage calls. At the end of the workday and during breaks, they were also required to log out of systems and complete additional wrap-up activities.
According to the plaintiffs, these preparatory and concluding tasks went uncompensated. Because the boot-up process took several minutes to complete, Plaintiff Lott alleged that she and other PCAs performed these tasks before clocking in or after clocking out to avoid violating company policies related to tardiness or unauthorized overtime.
Under the FLSA, employers must pay non-exempt employees for all hours worked and provide overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. In some cases, employers must also compensate workers for after-hours emails, texts, and phone calls.
The Legal Issue: Compensable Work Under the FLSA
The central issue in this case is whether these mandatory pre- and post-shift activities that are necessary to perform their principal job duties constitute compensable work under the FLSA.
Under Supreme Court precedent, employers must compensate employees for work activities that are integral and indispensable to their principal job duties. (Examples include putting on and taking off required protective gear (“donning” and “doffing”) and sharpening butchery tools.)
However, employers are not required to compensate workers for certain preliminary or postliminary time, including, for example, standing in line to don or doff protective gear The Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 amended the FLSA to clarify that employers are not required to pay for workers’ commuting time and “preliminary or postliminary” activities such as commuting or going through security checks.
In its decision, the District Court divided the employees’ activities into two categories. It held that some tasks, such as logging into proprietary call management software, may be compensable, whereas others were non-compensable preliminary or postliminary activities. In particular, the court identified activities such as turning on or waking a computer, entering login credentials, completing multi-factor authentication, opening timekeeping systems, and accessing a VPN, and, at the end of the day, shutting down or locking the computer, as non-compensable. Although these steps were necessary to begin work, the court concluded they were not “integral” to the employees’ principal duty of answering inbound calls.
In contrast, the court held that the workday begins when employees access and begin using the applications that are central to their job duties. These include systems such as the employer’s phone platform, workflow tools, directory databases, and client electronic medical record systems. The court explained that once employees are operating these programs in connection with handling inbound calls, they are performing activities that are both integral and indispensable to their principal work. Accordingly, the court concluded that the compensable workday starts when employees access one of these core systems and ends when they log out of the last such system.
Why the Decision Matters
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held that preparatory activities like those Plaintiff Lott and other PCAs performed are compensable under the FLSA. While the factual settings in those cases differ from the Lott matter, the underlying legal question, whether required preparatory activities are compensable, remains the same. The Ohio District Court reached a different conclusion and, as a district court within the Sixth Circuit, was not bound by those appellate decisions.
The decision is significant because it adopts a novel interpretation of when the workday begins under the FLSA and, in doing so, draws a distinction between employees working in different settings. The District Court treated the employees’ work environment as legally relevant, suggesting that certain preparatory computer-based activities are not compensable in the remote context, even though the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have found similar activities compensable for employees working in traditional, in-person call center settings. While the underlying job duties and required tasks are materially the same, the court nevertheless treated the difference in setting as legally significant.
Is Time-Rounding Legal?
Another issue in the Lott case involves the employers’ time-rounding policy. Under that policy, PCAs’ clock-in and clock-out times were rounded to the nearest quarter hour.
The District Court recognized that time-rounding policies can be lawful under the FLSA if they are neutral on their face and in practice. Here, the court found that the policy was neutral as written because it rounded time both up and down in equal increments.
However, the court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate because there were genuine disputes of fact regarding whether the policy was neutral in practice. Specifically, the court found genuine disputes of fact as to whether the rounding policy remained neutral when considered alongside the employer’s timekeeping, tardiness, and overtime policies, and whether the policy actually averaged out over time so that employees were fully compensated for all hours worked. Because of these unresolved factual issues, the court allowed the rounding claim to proceed.
Courts evaluating time-rounding policies generally focus on whether, over time, the practice fairly averages out so that it does not consistently favor either the employer or the employee. Whether a rounding policy complies with the law is often a fact-intensive inquiry that depends on how the policy operates in practice.
What’s Next for the Lott Plaintiffs and Other Remote Workers?
The Lott plaintiff has petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal on multiple grounds. Most notably, Plaintiff argues that the court improperly interpreted the FLSA by categorizing certain boot-up activities as non-essential and non-compensable while allowing others. Plaintiff also disagrees with the court’s decision that remote call center workers who perform the same job duties in all material respects and require a computer and programs/applications in order to perform their job duties should be treated dissimilarly.
Because the District Court acknowledged that these issues present novel and controlling questions of law, appellate review could significantly shape how courts analyze compensable work and collective action procedures under the FLSA.
The Sixth Circuit’s review may provide needed guidance on how courts should analyze compensable work in cases involving required preparatory activities, particularly where employees must use employer-mandated systems to perform their core job functions.
Contact Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
It’s always wise for employers to periodically review their timekeeping and time-rounding policies to ensure compliance with state laws and the FLSA. Employees should consult with an experienced attorney if they suspect their employer is improperly calculating their pay or withholding wages. In addition to depriving employees of earned wages, miscalculating time can affect the amount of sick time they accrue under the Michigan Earned Sick Time Act.
If you have questions about remote workers’ rights, unpaid wages, or other Michigan employment issues, contact Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Our experienced team of employment attorneys has decades of experience championing the rights and ensuring the safety of Michigan workers. Contact us today to schedule a free, confidential, no-obligation consultation.
