eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – November 2022 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

Amaya v. DGS Construction, LLC et al and Rojas v. F.R. General Contractors Inc., et al.
Numbers 14 and 17 September Term, 2021 respectively,
Maryland Court of Appeals

Federal law contained within the Fair Labor Standards Act and Portal to Portal Act did not fully define the scope and breadth of what was deemed compensable work in MD in light of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage and Payment Collection Law.

Background

The Court remanded both cases to the original trial court level for factual determinations under the MWHL and MWPCL. In these 2 suits, employees allege unjust enrichment to the employers, as employees alleged an average mandated travel time of 2 hours a day to travel from a proscribed parking area to the Employers’ work site, and back again, was unpaid and should be paid to employees under Maryland’s statutes. Plaintiffs Amaya and Rojas worked for distinct employers but brought identical actions for unpaid wages and overtime wages under the MWHL and MWPCL and also claimed unjust enrichment to their Employers for time they waited and traveled between a parking area where they were directed to park (by the Employers) and a construction site about an hour away (each direction). This travel was via buses provided and paid for by the General Contractor of the work site and this travel time was unpaid.

The Plaintiffs argued that under MWHL and MWPCL the parking lot was a ”prescribed workplace or worksite” as their Employers directed them to report to the parking lot to pick up the bus to the worksite. Following this assertion, Plaintiffs alleged that their Employers needed to compensate them for this travel time as it originated at the workplace or worksite. The Employers argued that the definition of “work” was as defined in the FLSA and as amended by the PPA which they argued had been incorporated into the 2 MD statutes. The Employers argued that the federal statutes do not include traveling to work as compensable work and therefore this travel time was deemed as unpaid travel time.

In both cases the trial courts granted preliminary motions in favor of the Employers and so there had been no findings by a trier of fact as to whether the employees were mandated to report to the parking area; whether the parking area was the employer’s premises or a prescribed workplace or whether the workers were required to be on duty and hence were engaged in work per Maryland’s two statutes, MWHL and MWPCL. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ rulings.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the PPA which proscribes compensation for travel time has not been incorporated into MWHL, MWPCL or the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). Therefore, the Court held that fact finding must be done at the trial court level to identify determinative facts under Maryland law.

Takeaway

These are not WC actions, however, the Court of Appeals makes clear in these unjust enrichment, wage loss cases that Maryland law, and Maryland definitions of work, workplace and worksite are fact specific and the appellate court sends a strong message that will carry over to Workers’ Compensation cases that revolve around issues of “within the course and scope”, the coming and going exception and potentially issues of jurisdiction as well. The determination of these types of issues must be explored at trial and determined by the triers of fact.

Questions about this case can be directed to Ruth Jacobs at (443) 641-0573 or rjacobs@tthlaw.com.