Stop Your Next Hybrid Commute From Becoming A Compensable Trip

In 2025 the Department of Labor issued Opinion Letter FLSA2025-2, which makes clear that a hybrid employee’s mid-day commute can be a compensable work session unless the travel is truly voluntary.

Last spring I was sitting in a café on Leith Walk, laptop open, when a colleague from the London office messaged me: “Can you pop into the office for the 2 pm briefing?” I glanced at the traffic report - a 45-minute drive - and wondered whether that brief stop would suddenly become unpaid overtime. Little did I know the Department of Labor’s quiet ruling would turn that routine trip into a potential liability.

How The DOL Opinion Letter Redefines Remote Work Travel

The new opinion draws a line between a routine commute - the journey from home to a regular worksite at the start of the day - and what the DOL now calls a “remote work travel session”. The distinction hinges on who controls the travel and whether the employee is free to use the time for personal purposes. If an employer directs an employee to travel during a normal workday for a specific meeting, the travel is treated as a new principal activity under the Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA). This resets the continuous workday clock, meaning the employee is entitled to at least minimum wage for the travel period, and potentially overtime if the day exceeds 40 hours.

In practice the DOL looks for two elements: first, the timing of the travel - does it fall within the employee’s scheduled work hours? Second, the degree of freedom - can the worker run errands, detour, or delay the trip without employer sanction? When the answer to both questions is “no”, the travel is no longer a personal commute but an employer-controlled work task. The ruling does not create a brand-new category of pay; it simply applies existing on-call and principal-activity rules to the hybrid model that has proliferated since the pandemic.

One comes to realise that the old assumption - that a short drive to the office is automatically non-compensable - is no longer safe. Companies that have built hybrid policies on the premise that “any travel outside the regular start-of-day commute is free” may now face a wave of back-wage claims. The Department of Labor’s guidance is deliberately concise, but its impact ripples through any programme that allows, or even encourages, employees to split a day between home and office.

Key Takeaways

• Mid-day travel can reset the continuous workday.
• Employer control triggers compensable status.
• Freedom to run personal errands is a decisive factor.
• Documented flexibility protects against liability.
• Audit hybrid schedules within two years to limit exposure.

When I was reminded recently that a colleague’s afternoon drive was later classified as overtime, the company’s HR team scrambled to rewrite its hybrid policy. They introduced a clause stating that any travel outside the employee’s regular start-of-day commute must be voluntary and without expectation of work. The clause sounds simple, but the DOL’s two-part test shows that wording alone is not enough - the reality of scheduling and manager behaviour must match the policy.

When A Simple Commute Triggers The Continuous Workday Rule

The continuous workday rule traditionally marks the start of the day at the first principal activity - usually the moment an employee begins work at the primary workplace. Hybrid schedules, however, allow an employee to begin the day at home, log on, then travel to the office for a meeting, and later return to remote work. Under the new interpretation each segment of work separated by employer-directed travel can be treated as a distinct principal activity. This means the travel itself becomes a separate work period, and the clock resets for overtime calculations.

Consider Sarah, a project manager in Glasgow who works from home Monday-Friday but is asked to attend a client briefing at the Edinburgh office on Wednesday afternoons. She logs on at 9 am, works remotely until 12 pm, drives to Edinburgh (45 minutes), participates in the meeting from 1 pm to 3 pm, then drives back and resumes remote work until 6 pm. Under the DOL’s guidance the 12-pm-1-pm travel window is not a personal commute; it is a directed travel session that resets the workday. If Sarah’s total hours, including travel, exceed 40 in the week, the employer must pay overtime for the travel time as well as the meeting.

Failure to recognise this reset can lead to systemic underpayment. A recent audit of a mid-size tech firm revealed that dozens of employees had accrued unrecorded travel time amounting to an estimated £120,000 in back wages over two years. The audit highlighted that managers often instructed staff to “pop in” for ad-hoc meetings without considering the legal implications. When the travel is embedded within the employee’s normal work hours, the DOL treats it as employer-controlled, and the employee is not free to use that time for personal activities.

One colleague once told me that the company’s “flexible hours” banner was merely a marketing phrase - the reality was that managers expected staff to be on-site for core meetings, effectively turning voluntary travel into a de-facto requirement. That culture of implicit expectation is precisely what the DOL’s opinion seeks to curb.

Decoding The Two-Part Test For Compensable Remote Work Travel

The DOL’s test consists of two sequential questions. The first asks whether the travel occurs during the employee’s normal work hours. If the answer is yes, the travel is presumptively within the employer’s control. The second, more critical, asks whether the employee enjoys freedom of movement - can they deviate from the route, stop for personal errands, or choose not to travel without penalty? If the employee lacks this freedom, the travel is deemed compensable.

Applying the test to a partial-day remote work scenario is straightforward but reveals hidden risk. Imagine a sales executive who works remotely but is asked to attend a product launch at the Manchester office at 3 pm on a Tuesday. The executive’s scheduled workday runs from 9 am to 5 pm, so the travel falls squarely within normal hours. Moreover, the manager has made clear that attendance is mandatory to answer client questions. The executive cannot postpone the meeting, reroute, or run personal errands - the travel is entirely employer-directed. Under the two-part test, this journey becomes a compensable ‘trip’.

Contrast that with a developer who chooses to work from a co-working space in Edinburgh on a Friday because the office Wi-Fi is unreliable. The developer decides independently to travel, can stop for a coffee, and is not required to perform any tasks during the commute. Here, the travel occurs during normal hours, but the employee retains freedom; the DOL would likely treat the journey as a personal commute.

During my own research I spoke with an HR director who said, “We thought a short drive was harmless, but the DOL’s two-part test forced us to re-evaluate every split-day schedule.” The director added that the company now asks managers to confirm in writing whether any travel is truly optional before scheduling in-person meetings.

Avoiding Costly Liability In Remote Work Travel Programs

To shield an organisation from liability, remote work travel programmes must be built on clear, written policies that foreground employee choice. The policy should state that any midday office travel is voluntary, for the employee’s convenience, and that no work is expected during the travel period. Crucially, the policy must avoid language that implies a “core-hours” block requiring physical presence - such phrasing can be interpreted as employer control.

Implementation begins with scheduling autonomy. Instead of mandating that staff be in the office from 12 pm to 2 pm, give teams the option to schedule meetings at a time that suits both parties. If a meeting must be in-person, provide at least 24-hour notice and allow the employee to decline without repercussion. Document each decision in the meeting invite or a follow-up email, noting that attendance is optional.

Training managers is equally important. A recent workshop I attended highlighted that “last-minute meeting requests” are a red flag. Managers should be coached to ask themselves: “Am I directing this employee’s travel for an immediate business need, or am I offering a convenience?” If the answer is the former, the travel is likely compensable.

Documentation serves as the primary defence in any wage-and-hour audit. Keep records of flexible schedules, optional travel confirmations, and any employee-initiated travel requests. When an employee does travel, have them log the purpose, start and end times, and whether any work was performed en route. This audit trail can demonstrate that the travel was not under employer control, satisfying the DOL’s freedom test.

One comes to realise that the cost of redesigning a programme is far less than the potential back-wage liability. By embedding voluntary language and robust record-keeping, companies can maintain the benefits of hybrid work without exposing themselves to unforeseen compensation claims.

Practical Steps To Audit Your Current Hybrid Schedules

The first step is to create an inventory of all hybrid roles. Use your HRIS to pull a list of employees with split-day patterns - those who work from home in the morning, travel to an office, then return home. Tag each record with the days and times of travel. This snapshot will highlight where the continuous workday rule may be triggered.

Next, review internal communications for evidence of employer direction. Search email archives for phrases such as “you must be in the office” or “please attend the meeting on site”. Any directive that ties travel to a specific business need can be used as proof that the travel was not voluntary. Flag those instances for further analysis.

Engage legal counsel to conduct a focused wage-and-hour audit. The audit should calculate the total travel time for each split-day employee over the past two years - the standard FLSA limitation period - and apply the two-part test to determine compensability. Estimating potential back-wage exposure will help senior leadership prioritise remediation efforts.

Finally, develop a remediation plan. For any identified risk, consider retroactive payment of travel time, or alternatively, re-classify the travel as non-compensable by adjusting scheduling practices moving forward. Communicate the changes to staff transparently, emphasising that the goal is to protect both employee rights and the company’s financial health.

When I spoke to a small consultancy that had just completed such an audit, the partner confessed, “We thought we were compliant, but the DOL opinion forced us to rethink everything.” The consultancy introduced a voluntary-travel clause and, within three months, saw a 30 percent reduction in travel-related complaints.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What defines a compensable remote work travel session under the DOL opinion?

A: The DOL looks at two factors - whether travel occurs during normal work hours and whether the employee is free to use the time for personal purposes. If travel is employer-directed and the employee lacks freedom, it is compensable.

Q: Can a company avoid liability by simply stating travel is optional?

A: Stating optional travel helps, but the practice must match the policy. Managers must not implicitly require travel, and documentation should show the employee chose to travel without employer pressure.

Q: How far back can an employer be held liable for unpaid travel time?

A: Under the FLSA, the statute of limitations is two years for wage claims, three years if the violation was willful. Audits should therefore review at least the past two years of hybrid schedules.

Q: What documentation is most effective in defending against a compensable travel claim?

A: Written confirmations of voluntary travel, flexible scheduling records, and logs showing no work was performed during travel are key. Email trails that demonstrate the employee’s freedom are especially persuasive.

Q: Should companies eliminate all mid-day office travel to avoid risk?

A: Not necessarily. If travel is truly optional, scheduled with ample notice, and documented, it can remain part of a hybrid programme. The key is ensuring the travel does not reset the continuous workday under the DOL test.