MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION James Dieffenbauch (the “Named Plaintiff”) brought this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated against Rhinehart Railroad Construction, Inc. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). In the Complaint, Named Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§201 et seq. See generally id. Named Plaintiff specifically asserts that, by not compensating travel time, Defendant violated §207(a)(1), an FLSA provision governing overtime pay. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 78-1 (“Motion”).1 Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on four issues: (1) that they were not properly compensated for travel under 29 C.F.R. §785.38; (2) that they were not properly compensated for travel under 29 C.F.R. §785.39; (3) that Defendant’s violations of those regulations resulted in weeks in which Plaintiffs worked more than forty hours but did not receive overtime pay; and (4) that Defendant cannot show good-faith compliance with the FLSA to avoid the imposition of liquidated damages. See Mot. at 1-2. Defendant opposes the Motion. Dkt. Nos. 90 (“Opposition”), 90-3 (“Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts” or “Defendant’s SMF”); 90-2 (“Richard Rhinehart Affidavit”).2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual History The following facts are undisputed, except where otherwise noted. 1. The Parties Named Plaintiff and the forty-three others who have opted in to this lawsuit are current and former employees of Defendant.3 See Pls.’ SMF 2; Def.’s SMF 2. Defendant is in the business of building and maintaining railroad tracks across the United States. See Pls.’ SMF 1; Def.’s SMF 1. 2. Plaintiffs’ Job Functions Plaintiffs shared the same primary duties: building and repairing railroad tracks. See Pls.’ SMF 3; Def.’s SMF 3. Depending on a customer’s needs, the Plaintiffs were assigned to work either as operators or laborers. See Pls.’ SMF 4; Def.’s SMF 4. Both roles involved manual labor. See Pls.’ SMF 5; Def.’s SMF 5. Plaintiffs were paid by the hour. See Pls.’ SMF 7; Def.’s SMF 7. Supervisors inputted hours worked into an application known as eSub. See Pls.’ SMF 40; Def.’s SMF 40. Plaintiffs assert that their “work hours varied wildly from one day to the next.” Pls.’ SMF 12. Defendant notes that “[e]ach job typically had its own schedule” and that “[i]n rare circumstances, a particular job’s work schedule was in the evening.” Def.’s SMF 12. In any event, Plaintiffs’ work schedules were set each week during a weekly conference call by Richard and Brandon Rhinehart, Defendant’s vice president and secretary, respectively. See Pls.’ SMF 14; Def.’s SMF 14; see also Dkt. No. 78-2, Ex. A (“Richard Rhinehart Deposition”) at 16; id., Ex. H (“Brandon Rhinehart Deposition”) at 20.4 Unexpected “emergency situations” could cause deviations from the set schedule. See Pls.’ SMF 17; Def.’s SMF 17. Each job was classified as either prevailing wage or non-prevailing wage. See Pls.’ SMF 20; Def.’s SMF 20. According to Plaintiffs, “[a] prevailing wage job refers to a job on which [Defendant's] customer is a governmental entity that is required by statute or by the contract, or both, to pay certain rates, also known as prevailing rates, to the employees who perform work on the job.” Pls.’ SMF 21. Defendant’s records reflected whether each job paid the prevailing wage. See Pls.’ SMF 22; Def.’s SMF 22. 3. Travel Practices and Compensation Plaintiffs were required to travel to the job sites to which they were assigned. See Pls.’ SMF 26; Def.’s SMF 26. Plaintiffs assert, and Defendant disputes, that they were not compensated for all of their hours worked. See Pls.’ SMF 8 (citing Dkt. No. 78-2, Ex. G (“Cullen Deposition”) at 14); Def.’s SMF 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that they were not compensated for all of their travel time, and as a result, they “routinely” worked more than forty hours in a week without receiving overtime pay. See Pls.’ SMF 10. Defendant denies this. See Def.’s SMF 10. The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs were required to report to one of Defendant’s three yards-two of which are in Maryland and one of which is in Pennsylvania — to collect tools before departing for a job. Compare Pls.’ SMF 46 with Def.’s SMF 46. Defendant has no written policy regarding travel time compensation. See Pls.’ SMF 27; Def.’s SMF 27. Plaintiffs argue that, under an unwritten policy, Defendant compensated only one-way travel on non-prevailing wage jobs and did not compensate travel at all on prevailing wage jobs. See Pls.’ SMF 28. Defendant disputes this. See Def.’s SMF
