2019 is proving to be a busy year in the land of trucking litigation. Whether you are looking at action in the deep south or movements in California (again), if the first quarter is any indication, this will prove to be another incredibly busy year for lawyers and judges working trucking cases. Our first case litigation comes from the state of Arkansas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All Hours Worked<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Last fall, the U.S. District Court for the Western District\nof Arkansas ruled that an Arkansas-based transportation company violated the Fair\nLabor Standards Act. Although the company petitioned the court to dismiss the\ncase, the motion was denied. The case was initially brought on by three truck\ndrivers and then became a class action lawsuit when another 3,000 truck drivers\njoined the case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n After appeal, the case headed to the docket headed up by\nU.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks. Then, on January 25, Judge Brooks\nreaffirmed the decision and allowed the class action certification to remain.\nWhile this decision was largely expected, it created major shockwaves\nthroughout the trucking industry. Depending on how this lawsuit ultimately\nplays out, it could completely upend the way truck drivers are paid across the\ncountry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lawsuit was brought on by truck drivers who alleged that\nthe company failed to compensate its truck drivers at least the federal minimum\nwage for all compensable time worked. The lawsuit includes the initial\norientation period and time worked driving over-the-road, whether solo or in\nteams. They also included any travel tie that occurred during normal business\nhours. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While the judge reaffirmed the ruling, he also made clear\nthat, as he referred to it, the lawsuit involved a \u201csomewhat tangled web of\nstatutes, agency regulations, and agency interpretations of statutes and regulations.\u201d\nOne of the main sticking points for the suit is a Department of Labor rule that\ncaps the amount of time an employer may dock an employee (at 8 hours) who is on\nduty for more than 24 hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The argument shifts to the Fair Labor Standards Act definition\nof what is \u201con duty\u201d and what is waiting. The specific verbiage cited rests on\nthe aspect of the rule that says if an employee is required to report to a\nplace of work at a specific time, the time the employee spends waiting should\nbe compensable. The motor carrier at the center of the lawsuit argued that time\nthe truck driver spends in their sleeper berth should not compensable, whereas\nthe truck drivers said it should be. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The truck drivers also pointed to a regulation citing that\n\u201cwork performed while traveling\u201d must also be compensable. In his ruling, Judge\nBrooks wrote that there no ambiguity to these citations. He stated that whether\nthe truck driver is riding around in his truck sleeping or eating, the time\nshould be considered \u201cworking\u201d and that any \u201cwork performed while traveling\u201d is\ncompensable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Debating the Verbiage<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As with almost any federal employment lawsuit, much of this\nrevolves around the verbiage used in the original statute. There are specific\ndefinitions in the Fair Labor Standards act that are being debated, with the\nmain area of contention being that the act does not clearly define the terms\n\u201con duty\u201d or \u201chours worked.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n The trucking company argues that DOT hours of service\nregulations should be applied where the term \u201con duty\u201d is concerned. According\nto HOS roles, on duty time is all the time from the time a truck driver begins\nwork until the time the truck driver is relieved from work. HOS rules\nspecifically exclude time spent resting in a sleeper berth as on-duty time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Judge Brooks explicitly dismissed this line of defense, stating that the DOT regulations have little bearing on what he considered to be a labor and employment matter. He went on to state that there is no inconsistency if the DOT prohibits commercial truck drivers from operating a commercial motor vehicle for more than 14 hours in a 24-hour period while the DOL required that employers pay them for at least 16 hours within the time period allotted by the DOT. He states this paradigm would simply be the cost of business for the trucking company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The attorneys for the trucking company argued that the idea\nthat a truck driver is on duty for 24 hours a day is, inherently, a faulty\npremise. If one were to go by DOT regulations, a truck driver simply cannot be\non duty for 24 hours a day since they are required to take a 10-hour break at\nsome point within the work period. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The interesting part about this is that there is another\ncase that is also working its way through the course which could also set a\nprecedent in this argument. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding Student\nTruck Drivers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Another case pits student truck drivers against their\nemployer. In the program cited, students were required to be on the road with\nexperienced truck drivers for training purposes and the students are paid a\nflat weekly rate. While the trucking company stated in the lawsuit that it\nreviews the total number of on-duty hours logged and supplements the pay if\nthey are not getting paid minimum wage for their time, the argument once again\nrevolves around what exactly \u201con-duty\u201d means. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The trucking company in this case argued that when the truck\ndriver is in the sleeper berth, they are not on \u201cactive duty.\u201d The student\ntruck drivers in the case noted that they were on assignment for 24 hours, even\nwhen they were in the sleeper berth. By their definition, while they were with\nthe vehicle, they were directly responsible for the vehicle, which means they\nwere never completely relieved of their responsibilities associated with the\nvehicle. Thus, they were never actually off duty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case may face a larger battle than the Arkansas case.\nThe student\u2019s original motion had been denied in 2015 by a U.S. District Court\njudge. In denying the motion in that case, the judge singled out a case filed\nin Oregon where an Idaho-based trucking company successfully defended itself\nfrom similar claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference is that in this case, the judge specified\nthat if the truck driver is permitted to sleep in adequate facilities furnished\nby the employer, that cannot be considered \u201cwork while traveling.\u201d The judge\nthen pointed to the DOL\u2019s field operations handbook, which regards sleeper\nberths as adequate sleeping facilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n How either of these cases will play out is anyone\u2019s guess,\nbut one way or another, a precedent will be set. Will truck drivers or trucking\ncompanies come out on the winning end? Stay tuned to find out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n California Fights the\nFMCSA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, in California (which we seem to say a lot), the\nstate has petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the FMCSA\u2019s\nrecent decree that the state cannot enforce the rest break and meal rules for\ntruck drivers. In the case, the DOT deemed California\u2019s law incompatible with\nfederal regulations. The DOT stated that California\u2019s law created a confusing\nand overly burdensome situation for truck drivers that reduces productivity and\nincreases consumer costs. They also said adequate parking could become an\nissue. This case is yet another example of state\u2019s rights versus the will of\nthe federal government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In its petition, California argued that the rules they\ninstituted are \u201cbackground\u201d labor standards, rather than a specific regulation\nof all motor carriers in the state. The state went to argue that the FMCSA\nsimply does not have jurisdiction in the matter. California\u2019s Labor Secretary,\nJulie A. Su, stated that under the George W. Bush administration, the FMCSA\nclearly determined that these types of worker rights were not preempted by\nfederal law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n California alleges that the FMCSA guidelines would require\ntruck drivers to work up to 12 hours a day without rest breaks, which could\npresent a major safety issue for both truck drivers and those on the road\naround them. California also pointed out that there have been numerous court\ncases in the past that have upheld California labor standards against\npreemption where trucking and transportation-related cases are concerned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even more, California is not the only entity attempting to litigate a change in this case. The Teamsters Union has also stepped in to challenge the FMCSA\u2019s declaration. In their petition, they also pointed to highway and public safety, stating that this is a matter of trucking companies being allowed to make a little bit of profit at the sake of truck driver well-being. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Certainly, this case will continue making its way through\nthe courts and may eventually wind up on the Supreme Court\u2019s docket. While the\ncurrent makeup of the Supreme Court favors corporations, it is still too soon\nto tell if they will even take the case. Whatever happens, you can rest assured\nwe will be right here covering it for you and providing an in-depth analysis at\nthe QuickTSI blog<\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"