DOL Issues Opinion Letters on Commute and Travel Time; Major Change Proposed in Electronic Employee Benefits Information

What do you pay an hourly employee who starts working remotely at home and then travels to the office? Two recent Department of Labor (DOL) opinion letters provide useful guidance on when employee travel time must be paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Although the letters address different circumstances, together they highlight an important distinction: whether the travel is an ordinary commute or has become part of the employee’s work.

Midday Commuting May Remain Unpaid

In FLSA2026-9, the DOL considered employees who wanted to work from home for part of the day and then commute to the office after rush hour. The DOL concluded that the commute could remain unpaid, even though the employee had already started working.

According to the DOL, the travel was essentially an ordinary home-to-work commute, even though it occurred in the middle of the employee’s workday. The critical consideration was that the employee—not the employer—was choosing when to make the trip for the employee’s own convenience.

In other words, an employee does not necessarily transform an ordinary commute into compensable work time simply by deciding to make that commute at a different point in the day.

This provides useful flexibility for employers that want to permit employees to adjust their schedules to accommodate traffic, family obligations, or other personal circumstances.

Employer-Directed Travel Is Different

The result was different in FLSA2026-10, which involved a field service engineer.

The engineer did not have a traditional fixed workplace. Each morning, while still at home, the engineer received service requests and contacted customers and other engineers to schedule appointments. The engineer then drove an employer-provided vehicle to the first customer location. The DOL determined that both the scheduling work and the subsequent travel were compensable.

The scheduling calls were plainly work because they were directly related to the engineer’s primary responsibilities. More importantly for purposes of the travel question, the employer required the employee to perform this work immediately before leaving for the first assignment and then to perform additional work after arriving at the customer’s location.

Under those circumstances, the trip was not treated as an ordinary commute. Rather, the travel was part of a sequence of employer-directed activities.

Practical Implications for Employers

The two opinion letters provide several practical takeaways:

• Flexible commuting arrangements are not necessarily prohibited by the FLSA. Employers may be able to permit non-exempt employees to shift their commute to avoid traffic or accommodate personal circumstances without automatically making the commute compensable.

• Employers should pay attention to who controls the travel. A trip that the employee voluntarily schedules for personal convenience is more likely to retain its character as an ordinary commute. Travel that the employer directs as part of the employee’s work assignments presents a different situation.

• Employers should examine the activities surrounding the travel. Work performed immediately before or after a trip can be an important factor in determining whether the travel is part of the employee’s compensable workday.

• Employers with field employees should review their travel practices carefully. Employees who travel from home to customer locations, particularly employees who perform work before leaving home or immediately upon arriving at the first assignment, may present different issues from traditional commuters.

DOL Proposes Rule to Allow Electronic Delivery of Group Health Plan Disclosures

The U.S. DOL has proposed a rule that will allow group health administrators to transmit group health plan disclosures electronically. Currently, the DOL only permits electronic plan disclosures when the plan participant:

• Has work-related computer access (the employee is “wired at work”); or

• Affirmatively consents to electronic delivery.

Under the newly proposed rule, published on July 22, 2026, administrators of ERISA-covered group health plans would be permitted to send required group health disclosures to participants and beneficiaries who provide an email address or mobile phone number capable of receiving electronic notices. 

The rule would apply to virtually all disclosures required under ERISA, including:

• Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs);

• HIPAA special enrollment notices;

• Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBCs) (to the extent otherwise permitted);

• Summaries of Material Modifications (SMMs);

• Summary Annual Reports (SARs); and

• COBRA notices.

Comments on the Proposed Rule are due by September 21, 2026. If finalized, the safe harbor would become available beginning on the first day of the first calendar year following publication of the final rule.

DOJ Guidance Signals Broad Interpretation of Duty to Accommodate Religion

Can an employee claim a religious right to refuse to use a coworker's preferred pronouns? To display religious messages at work? To discuss religious beliefs with coworkers? According to new guidance from the Department of Justice, employers may need to think carefully before answering "no."

While the guidance, published on July 23, 2026, is directed to executive agencies, private employers should take notice. While the EEOC is an independent agency and is not bound by the DOJ's memorandum, the guidance provides a strong indication of the Administration's view of Title VII and may foreshadow the positions federal enforcement agencies—including the EEOC—take in future religious discrimination cases. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the EEOC has repeatedly identified religious accommodation as an enforcement priority.

The Guidance:

• Emphasizes that protected religious exercise extends well beyond traditional notions of worship or Sabbath observance. According to the DOJ, the free exercise of religion encompasses not only an individual's beliefs, but also speech, dress, conduct, and other actions undertaken in accordance with sincerely held religious convictions. As a result, employers may see accommodation requests involving a wider range of workplace practices than they have historically encountered.

• Adopts a broad view of religious expression in the workplace. It explains that religious speech, displays, and conversations may be protected under Title VII and should not be restricted simply because they occur in the workplace. Instead, employers should evaluate requests on an individualized basis, balancing an employee's right to express sincerely held religious beliefs against legitimate business needs and the employer's obligation to maintain a workplace free from unlawful harassment.

• Reinforces the Supreme Court's decision in Groff v. DeJoy, reiterating that employers may deny a religious accommodation only where it would impose a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer's business. The guidance cautions that speculative concerns, coworker objections, or minor administrative inconveniences generally will not satisfy the undue hardship standard. Instead, employers should be prepared to articulate concrete operational burdens when denying a requested accommodation. 

• Reaffirms the significant statutory and constitutional protections afforded to religious organizations. It emphasizes that religious employers retain broad authority to make employment decisions consistent with their religious mission and beliefs and discusses the protections available under Title VII, the First Amendment, and other federal laws.

Taken together, the guidance reflects the Administration's view that religious liberty protections should be interpreted broadly and that requests for religious accommodation should receive careful, individualized consideration. While the memorandum does not alter employers' legal obligations under Title VII, it provides an important indication of how federal agencies may approach religious discrimination and accommodation issues going forward.

Minimum Wage to Increase 3.2% on January 1st

Connecticut’s minimum wage will increase 3.2% to $17.48 on January 1, 2027. It is currently $16.94 per hour. The increase represents an increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI) over the 12 month period ending on June 30, 2026. 

The ECI is an economic indicator published quarterly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that tracks changes in employer labor costs. Since January 1, 2024, Connecticut’s minimum wage has increased automatically each January 1^st as the Employment Cost Index increases.

MyCTSavings Deadline Approaching for Newly Covered Employers

Connecticut employers that recently received a notice from MyCTSavings have until August 31, 2026 to register their employees for MyCTSavings or certify their exemption through the MyCTSavings Portal. 

MyCTSavings is Connecticut's state-sponsored retirement savings program for private-sector employees whose employers do not offer a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k), SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA. Covered employers are required to facilitate payroll deductions into employee retirement accounts, but they are not required to make employer contributions or assume responsibility for administering or investing the accounts.

Who Must Register by August 31^st

The August 31, 2026 deadline applies to employers that have become newly eligible for the program. Generally, an employer must register with MyCTSavings—or certify that it is exempt—if it:

• Has five or more employees;

• Paid at least five employees $5,000 or more in taxable wages during the preceding calendar year;

• Does not sponsor a qualified retirement plan; and

• Has been identified by the state as newly eligible for the program.

The state-run program is overseen by the Connecticut Retirement Security Authority and administered on behalf of the Office of the State Comptroller. Employers that receive a MyCTSavings notice should promptly determine whether they are required to participate.

If the employer does not sponsor a qualified retirement plan, it should complete the registration process before the August 31 deadline. Employers that already offer a qualified retirement plan should certify their exemption through the MyCTSavings portal.

Failure to comply may subject an employer to civil penalties under Connecticut law.

Editor's Note: We will be discussing these and other developments in our Legislative and Employment Law Updates webinar on September 10, 2026. To register online click here, or contact Jessenia Narvaez, Office Manager, at jessenianarvaez@robertnoonan.com.