AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Three former employees of J.W. Drilling, Inc., a company engaged in oil field drilling in the Permian Basin, filed a lawsuit claiming they were not compensated for overtime wages for travel time from their homes to the job sites. They argued that the travel was part of their employment duties and that the failure to pay for this time violated New Mexico's Minimum Wage Act (MWA) (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County, Raymond L. Romero, District Judge: Granted summary judgment in favor of J.W. Drilling, Inc., dismissing the complaint (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants (Workers): Argued that their travel time to and from job sites should be compensable under the MWA, asserting that their travel was an integral part of their duties and for the benefit of the employer. They claimed to be "traveling employees" under New Mexico common law and entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week (paras 3, 10-11).
• Defendant-Appellee (Employer): Moved for summary judgment on the basis that the travel time claimed by the Workers was not compensable under the MWA. For the purposes of the motion, the Employer accepted the basic facts set out in the Workers' complaint but argued that the law did not support their claims for compensation (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether travel time to and from job sites is compensable under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Employer, holding that the travel time in question was not compensable under the MWA (para 16).

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that the district court erred to the extent it relied on federal law interpreting the Portal-to-Portal Act, as the MWA contains no similar exclusions for travel time. However, the court declined to import the "traveling employee" concept from workers' compensation law into wage and hour law, noting the distinct purposes and policies of these areas of law. The court also declined to fashion a new scheme of compensable travel time in the absence of explicit legislative language in the MWA, emphasizing the role of the legislature in amending statutory language. The court concluded that, under the MWA, commuting time to and from a job site is generally not compensable absent an agreement to the contrary, and upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Employer (paras 7-15).