UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U.S.A.3

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Martin v. Ohio Turnpike Commission

in International Labour Law Reports Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U.S.A.3

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Martin v. Ohio Turnpike Commission

in International Labour Law Reports Online

References

* Some footnotes have been omitted. The others are not renumbered. Ed.

4 Conversely, an employee may not be entitled to compensation even though the employer does require the employee to wait on company premises. See, e.g., Telly v. Hines-Rinaldi Funeral Home, 847 F.2d 147, 148 (4th Cir.1988) (affirming summary judgment against housekeeper's claim for compensa- tion for nights primarily spent sleeping in apartment inside funeral home), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 835, 110 S.Ct. 112, 107 L.Ed.2d 74 (1989); Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 805 F.2d 1245, 1248-49 (5th Cir.1986) (affirming dismissal of offshore oil workers' claim for compensation for time primarily spent sleeping and relaxing on employer's barge), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827, 108 S.Ct. 95, 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987).

5 If the custodian calls an employee and learns that he or she is too distant to arrive in time to help with the emergency, the custodian will call another employee. There is no indication in the record that the Turnpike. would discipline the first worker in that situation.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 4 4 2
Full Text Views 10 10 7
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0