Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc.

Summary

This concurrence agrees that the agency guidebook's interpretation of the travel-time regulation is not entitled to deference, but rejects the majority's conclusion that state law categorically excludes regular commuting time from compensation. It would hold that state law can cover commuting when the employee performs employment-related services that provide more than a de minimis benefit to the employer and impose more than a de minimis burden beyond the ordinary commute, while concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation on the facts found below. The concurrence therefore would affirm the judgment on state-law grounds rather than federal-preemption grounds.