Oliver v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs, Konica service technicians, were required to drive their personal vehicles, containing Konica’s tools and parts, to customer sites. Technicians did not report to an office but usually drove from home to the first customer of the day and, at the end of the day, from the last customer to home. Plaintiffs sought wages for time spent commuting to and from the first and last work locations and reimbursement for mileage incurred during those commutes. The court determined that the commute time was not compensable, citing wage order 4-2001 and Labor Code 2802.
The court of appeal reversed. If carrying tools and parts in a technician’s personal vehicle during the commute was optional, then the technician was not “subject to the control of [defendant]” for purposes of determining “hours worked.” Even if a technician was required “as a practical matter” to carry tools and parts during the commute, the technician would not be “subject to the control of [defendant]” during the commute if the technician was able to use the time effectively for the technician’s own purposes. However, if a technician was required during the commute to carry a volume of tools and parts that did not allow the technician to use ‘the time effectively for his own purposes, the technician would be “subject to the control of [defendant]” for purposes of determining “hours worked” and entitlement to wages. There are triable issues of material fact regarding those issues.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.