United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-3346 JAMES WALTERS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. PROFESSIONAL LABOR GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:21-cv-02831 — James R. Sweeney II, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 — DECIDED OCTOBER 30, 2024 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Professional Labor Group, LLC (PLG) matches its employees—many of whom are skilled tradesmen—with temporary work at client job sites. Employ- ees travel to the remote sites where they stay and work for days or weeks before returning home or moving on to the next job. PLG does not compensate its employees for time spent 2 No. 23-3346 traveling to and from assignments during their normal work- ing hours. Some of PLG’s former employees, including James Walters, believe it should. The question before us is whether the Fair Labor Standards Act requires it must. I PLG is an Indiana-based staffing firm and an employer subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The organiza- tion recruits and employs individuals skilled in various trade classifications, including electricians, millwrights, and the like. PLG serves its clients—mostly construction and indus- trial contractors—by supplementing their existing workforces with skilled labor. When a client needs assistance on a project, it places a request with PLG for employees qualified in a par- ticular trade. PLG then identifies appropriate candidates and assigns them to the job site. The assignments are not local. Rather, a job usually re- quires PLG employees to drive to the client’s remote site where they remain for the duration of the project—anywhere from a few days to several weeks. PLG normally provides its employees with per diems and mileage reimbursements con- sistent with the IRS business travel rate. But the organization does not otherwise compensate the tradesmen for their travel time, nor does it count their travel as hours worked. When the tradesmen arrive at a job site, the client dictates the terms of their employment. They always remain PLG em- ployees, but the client sets their daily schedules, assigns tasks, and determines when a particular project is complete. As a result, the employees’ workdays might vary from one site to the next. Once a project concludes, the tradesmen either No. 23-3346 3 return home or move on to another assignment. Like travel time to a job site, return travel goes uncompensated. James Walters, a skilled tradesman, was a PLG employee from June to October 2021. As with other PLG tradesmen, he was an hourly and nonexempt employee eligible for overtime pay under the FLSA. During his employment, Walters regu- larly traveled to and from remote job sites in the manner described above. Because he often did so during what he con- sidered his normal workday, and what clients would later designate as his normal working hours, Walters believes he is entitled to compensation for his time spent traveling. Accordingly, Walters filed suit against PLG on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleging their travel time was compensable under 29 C.F.R. § 785.39 and should have counted as hours worked toward overtime. PLG disa- grees, maintaining the travel time was non-compensable un- der the FLSA. At the close of discovery, PLG moved for summary judg- ment, which t