in the outlier idea that employees are not engaged in their ordinary work-to-home travel when their circumstances require them to travel in a way that is not effectively voluntary and does not directly benefit themselves. The idea of voluntariness as a necessary component of ordinary work-to-home travel time has been explicitly rejected by some courts, see, e.g., Griffin v. S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd., 507 Fed.Appx. 377, 383-84 (5th Cir.2013) (per curiam) (finding commuting time non-eom-pensable even where construction workers were required to take employer buses to worksite), despite the fact that the language of voluntariness is often used to bolster courts’ conclusions that that no work occurs during travel time, see, e.g. Vega v. Gasper, 36 F.3d 417, 425 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The idea of voluntariness is also not found
holding that the juvenile defendants who voluntarily left their homes in the middle of night to ride to the police department in patrol cars and who were told they were not under arrest were not in custody holding that employees who transported live poultry from an independent growers farm to their employers processing plant were not agricultural laborers holding that farm workers who voluntarily choose to ride employers bus to and from field were engaged in noncompensable travel holding that causes of action for employers misrepresentation and breach of contract to replacement workers are not preempted holding that thirdparty tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employers workers compensation liability