Atty. Michael C. Burke
Michael is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice in the areas of employment law, municipal liability, and civil rights litigation. In 2021, Michael received his juris doctor from Drexel University Thomas R.
Profile Summary
About Michael C. Burke at a glance
Michael C. Burke is an Associate based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, practicing at Marshall Dennehey. They have 5+ years of legal experience, licensed to practice since 2021. Their practice focuses on employment and civil rights. Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania (2021), U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (2021), and U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania (2021). Educated at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law (J.D., 2021) and Saint Joseph's University (B.S., 2017). Active member of Associations & memberships Luzerne County Bar Association Order of the Barristers Pennsylvania Bar Association Philadelphia Bar Association. Serands clients in Philadelphia, PA and the surrounding metropolitan area.
Want to Get Service From This Attorney?
Sign up free and choose one of the two methods below.
Ask the Attorney
Have a legal question? Sign up free, submit it through the Ask the Attorney module and receive a focused answer from a specialist.
- Free to ask a question
- Answers from specialist attorneys
- Optional private / anonymous question
Schedule a Consultation
Request an online video meeting or an in-person consultation at the attorney's office. Pick a time that works for you and share the details securely.
- Online video meeting
- In-person at the attorney's office
- Secure messaging and payment
About
- Michael is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice in the areas of employment law, municipal liability, and civil rights litigation
- In 2021, Michael received his juris doctor from Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law where he was both a member of the Drexel Moot Court Board and a Staff Editor for the Drexel Law Review
- During law school, Michael also earned a number of academic and scholastic honors, including multiple semesters on the Dean’s List, CALI Awards for Best Student Performance in both Appellate Advocacy and Litigation Practice Skills, and a Top Oralist award at the National Moot Court Competition, sponsored by the New York City Bar Association and the American College of Trial Lawyers
- In addition, he held a variety of private and public sector internships and externships, including serving as a summer clerk in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and later as a Co-Op Extern in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office
- Upon graduation, Michael was inducted into the Order of the Barristers, an honorary organization for graduating law students who demonstrate exceptional skills in trial advocacy, oral advocacy, and brief writing
- Michael joined Marshall Dennehey as a summer associate in 2020 where he continued to work throughout his third year of law school before returning to the firm following the Pennsylvania Bar Exam
- Michael is currently admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and the U.S
- District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- In 2017, Michael received a Bachelor of Science degree in Finance and Risk Management from Saint Joseph’s University where he graduated as a dual major
- Honors & Awards •Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2024-2026) Published Works •'Can ETS Mandating COVID Shots Survive Challenge and How Should Employers Prepare?' The Legal Intelligencer, December 9, 2021 Thought Leadership Defense Digest Driving the Workday: The Third Circuit Clarifies Compensable Travel Time Under the FLSA June 1, 2025 Key Points:Travel during the workday between clients’ homes is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.The key is whether the employee is considered on-duty at the time of travel-that is, whether the employee can use the time effectively for personal purposes
- Travel to a job site following an off-duty period is only compensable if “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s duties
- The Third Circuit’s ruling is sure to impact any industry with mobile employees engaged in providing in-home services
- As the demand for in-home care grows, so do questions about how federal labor laws apply to the home health care workforce
- In Sec’y U.S
- Dep’t. of Labor v
- Nursing Home Care Management, Inc., 128 F.4th 146 (3d Cir. 2025), the Third Circuit offered key guidance on the compensability of the travel time associated with the provision of at-home health care services.In the underlying litigation, the Department of Labor sued a home health care service provider, Nursing Home Care Management, Inc. d/b/a Prestige Home Care Agency (Prestige), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting various violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law regulating how employers compensate their employees for work they perform
- Among other things, the FLSA codifies the federal minimum wage, right to overtime pay, and various record keeping requirements imposed upon employers relating to those obligations
- In the instant case, the Department alleged, in relevant part, that Prestige failed to pay its Home Health Aides (HHAs) for time spent traveling between client homes
- Specifically, it alleged that Prestige: (1) did not compensate HHAs for travel time from one client’s home to another during the workday
- and (2) did not compensate HHAs for travel time to and from clients’ homes before and after an off-duty period
- At the conclusion of discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment
- In support of its claim regarding travel time, the Department relied on the “continuous workday doctrine,” which states that “time spent by an employee in travel as part of his principal activity, such as travel from job site to job site during the workday, must be counted as hours worked.” 29 C.F.R. 785.38
- By contrast, Prestige argued that travel time constitutes off-duty time under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which provides that an employer need not compensate an employee for “. . . traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity . . . which such employee is employed to perform.” 29 U.S.C. 254.The District Court granted summary judgment to the Department on its FLSA claims, concluding that Prestige’s practices amounted to willful violations of the FLSA
- To resolve the travel time issue, the court re-focused the question
- It noted that in IBP, Inc. v
- Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 37 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that “any activity that is ‘integral and indispensable’ to a principal activity is itself a principal activity under 4(a) of the Portal-to-Portal Act.” Thus, the court concluded that travel is a necessary, integral, and indispensable part of a HHA’s principal activities as, were an HHA not to travel, it would be impossible to provide Prestige’s services in its clients’ homes
- Thereafter, Prestige appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment
- In its analysis, the Court of Appeals took a slightly different approach, centering the discussion of travel time around two key questions-first, whether travel is compensable when the employee lacks the time to go off duty
- and second, if the employee has the time to go off duty, must he still be compensated for the time necessary to travel between job sites?In addressing the first question, the court distinguished its analysis from those of the District Court and the parties
- It explained that the analysis of whether the travel time was compensable was not a question of whether travel, itself, is a principal activity
- Rather, the court grounded its analysis in the federal regulations interpreting the FLSA, which make two key points clear-(1) employees are working for purposes of the law (in other words, are “on-duty”) when idle so long as “they are unable to use the time effectively for [their] own purposes,” and (2) under the continuous workday doctrine, “time spent by an employee in travel as part of his principal activity, such as travel from job site to job site during the work day, must be counted as hours worked.” 29 C.F.R. 785.15, 785.38
- For these reasons, the court held that HHAs are entitled to compensation when they are on duty and traveling
- Nevertheless, on the second question, the court returned to the “integral and indispensable” analysis
- It noted that, though not necessary for those HHAs who were already on duty such as in the first inquiry, the test remained appropriate for those employees who traveled to a client’s home following an off-duty period
- The court explained that such employees are entitled to compensation, but only for travel that was necessary to travel between job sites
- Put differently, such employees are only entitled to travel that was “integral and indispensable” to the principal activities of HHAs
- On this point, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s analysis that necessary travel to a client’s home is integral and indispensable as, were an HHA not to travel, it would be impossible to provide services in clients’ homes
- Still, the court took care to set boundaries
- It explained that an employee’s marginal travel that is unnecessary to move between job sites, such as to travel home, to another job, or to go shopping, is not compensable under the FLSA
- The result of this decision is twofold
- First, at least with respect to travel, compensability under the FLSA is not a question of whether the activity, itself, is a principal activity or is integral and indispensable to a principal activity
- Rather, the question is whether the employee is able to use the time effectively for their own purposes-or put differently, whether the employee is “on duty”-and whether the travel occurs during the broader continuous workday
- Second, for employees traveling following an off-duty period, compensability turns on whether any or all of that travel is “integral and indispensable” to their job duties
- Though applied here in the home health care context, employers engaged in providing any services at clients’ homes, such as real estate services, cable and utility services, landscaping, and home cleaning services, should note that such time may be compensable under the FLSA. *Michael is a member of our Professional Liability Department and works in our Philadelphia, PA office
- Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers
- This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship
- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2025 Marshall Dennehey
- All Rights Reserved
- This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm
- For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com
- Case Law Alerts Third Circuit Opts for Broad, “Fact-Specific Inquiry” Test in Analyzing Whether Certain Work-Related Activities Are Compensable Under the FLSA October 1, 2023 A group of oil rig hands sued their employer, Precision Drilling Corp. (PDC), alleging they were entitled to wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for time spent changing in and out of their protective gear, which included flame-retardant coveralls, steel-toed boots, hard hats, safety glasses, gloves, and earplugs
- The plaintiffs argued that changing in and out of their gear was “integral and indispensable” to their principal activity of drilling for oil and gas and, thereby, was compensable under the FLSA
- By contrast, PDC argued that it amounted to no more than non-compensable “preliminary and postliminary activity.” In granting summary judgment for PDC, the district court applied the Second Circuit’s “extraordinary risk” test, finding that the gear was neither integral nor indispensable to oil drilling as the risks necessitating the gear were “ordinary, hypothetical, isolated,” and the gear’s protection was incomplete
- On appeal, however, the Third Circuit reversed, ruling that the “extraordinary risk” test was too narrow for evaluating if changing in and out of the protective gear was an integral and indispensable and, thereby, compensable activity under the FLSA
- Instead, the court called for a more fact-specific inquiry and enumerated several key considerations for the lower court, including: (a) location-i.e., where the workers change
- (b) regulations- i.e., whether changing in and out of the gear is required by law or regulation
- and (c) the specialized nature of the gear
- Briefly applying this test, the court found several factual disputes relating to rules and regulations bearing on protective gear precluded summary judgment and, consequently, remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings
- Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers
- This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship
- Copyright 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved
- This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm
- News Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees May 22, 2026 Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars May 22, 2025
Practice Areas Explained
Michael C. Burke's Areas of Practice
Each practice area below reflects the types of cases Michael C. Burke handles, with a brief overview of what that area of law covers.
Employment Law
Employment lawyers represent workers in wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, wage & hour disputes, and severance negotiations.
Michael C. Burke is one of 169,120 employment attorneys indexed nationally. Browse employment attorneys in Pennsylvania →
Civil Rights
Civil rights attorneys for discrimination, police misconduct, constitutional rights, and civil liberties cases.
Michael C. Burke is one of 70,245 civil rights attorneys indexed nationally. Browse civil rights attorneys in Pennsylvania →
Jurisdictional Context
Why local counsel matters in Pennsylvania
Practicing law in Pennsylvania. Legal matters in Pennsylvania are governed by state-specific rules of civil and criminal procedure, statutes of limitations, and substantive law. Cases originating in Philadelphia are typically filed in the local municipal court or the appropriate Pennsylvania state district court, depending on subject matter and amount in controversy. An attorney licensed in Pennsylvania brings working knowledge of local procedural deadlines, judicial practices in this andnue, and the substantive law that applies to cases brought here. Out-of-state attorneys generally cannot represent clients in Pennsylvania courts without local counsel or pro hac vice admission.
Looking for additional Pennsylvania attorneys? Browse all attorneys in Philadelphia or all attorneys in Pennsylvania.
Frequently Asked
Common questions about Michael C. Burke
Where is Michael C. Burke's law office located?
Michael C. Burke's law practice is located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The firm is Marshall Dennehey. You can contact the office directly through this profile page.
What practice areas does Michael C. Burke handle?
Michael C. Burke focuses on employment, civil rights. Each practice area listed reflects experience handling cases of that type in Pennsylvania.
How long has Michael C. Burke practiced law?
Michael C. Burke has 5+ years of legal experience and has been licensed since 2021.
Where did Michael C. Burke go to law school?
Michael C. Burke earned their education at (J.D., 2021); (B.S., 2017).
How can I contact Michael C. Burke for a consultation?
You can contact Michael C. Burke directly through this profile page. Click "Ask the Attorney" to submit a question, or "Schedule a Consultation" to book a meeting. Most claimed-profile attorneys respond within one business day.
Practice Areas
Education
J.D.
Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
- 2021
B.S.
Saint Joseph's University
- 2017
Bar Admissions
Pennsylvania
Admitted: 2021
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Admitted: 2021
U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
Admitted: 2021
Reviews
These reviews belong to platform users; they do not constitute advertisement or promotion for the attorney. Opinions are published for informational purposes only.
No reviews yet.