Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

An Apple a Day May Increase Their Pay: Employees Seek Pay For Checking Emails After Hours

By T. Matthew Miller on August 19, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

An Apple a Day May Increase Their Pay: Employees Seek Pay For Checking Emails After HoursHold the iPhone —a recent lawsuit by a group of Chicago police officers should have employers on high alert—at least those who permit, officially or not, non-exempt employees to do anything business-related on a mobile device.

In this lawsuit, which recently started trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Chicago Police officers claim that they performed off-the-clock work by answering calls and other communications on work-issued mobile devices. While the police department says it does not permit officers to carry the mobile devices while off-duty unless specifically authorized, the officers claim there is an unwritten policy requiring them to constantly keep in contact while off-duty by answering phone calls and receiving as many as 100 emails a day.

Of course, almost everyone has a cell phone or mobile device, and most everyone uses the device for some aspect of work-related activity—even if only for a minute or two per day. Checking work schedules, advising a coworker where a file or piece of equipment is located, providing a phone number for a customer or client, or answering a quick email about the status of a project are all normal activities for today’s workforce. At what point do these activities become compensable time worked under the wage and hour laws? Does it matter if the device is employer-issued or personal? How does an employer monitor an employee’s after-hours usage? All of these questions have been quietly smoldering for years, waiting to potentially spark a new wave of employee lawsuits. What happens in Chicago in this particular case will not answer all of these questions, but it certainly has the potential to ignite an issue that could spread litigation across the employment landscape.

 

Photo of T. Matthew Miller T. Matthew Miller

Matt Miller has nearly 20 years of experience representing and advising management in all areas of labor and employment law, including anti-discrimination laws, wage and hour law, ERISA, OSHA, and covenants not to compete. He regularly advises clients on preventive measures, including creation…

Matt Miller has nearly 20 years of experience representing and advising management in all areas of labor and employment law, including anti-discrimination laws, wage and hour law, ERISA, OSHA, and covenants not to compete. He regularly advises clients on preventive measures, including creation and revision of policies and procedures, and represents clients in court cases in federal, state and administrative forums.

Read more about T. Matthew MillerEmailT. Matthew's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Labor & Employment Insights
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo