FLSA Plaintiff Wins Under an Exception to an Exemption

McMaster v. Eastern Armored Services, Inc., 780 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2015).  Plaintiff Ashley McMaster was a driver and/or guard (some days she drove, and other days she rode as a passenger to provide security) employed by defendant (“Eastern”), an armored courier company.  Plaintiff spent 51% of her total days working on vehicles that were rated heavier than 10,000 pounds and the other 49% of her days working on vehicles rated lighter than 10,000 pounds.  Paid by the hour, McMaster often worked over 40 hours per week, but she was not paid overtime for any hours.

After she left her job with Eastern, plaintiff sued Eastern under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), seeking overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours per week.  After a conditional class of similarly situated employees was certified, McMaster and Eastern cross-moved for summary judgment.  The issue was whether an FLSA provision known as the Motor Carrier Act Exemption exempted defendant from paying overtime to McMaster.  The District Court granted McMaster’s motion and denied that of Eastern.  But that court granted certification under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b), to allow immediate review by the Third Circuit.  Today, the Third Circuit affirmed in an opinion by Judge Fuentes that applied the de novo standard of review.

Under section 7 of the FLSA, employers must pay overtime rates for work beyond 40 hours per week.  But 29 U.S.C. §213(b)(1) of the FLSA creates what is known as the Motor Carrier Act Exemption.  That exemption provides that overtime pay is not required for “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service.”  But section 306(a) of the Technical Corrections Act of 2008, in turn, qualifies the Motor Carrier Act Exemption.  Section 306(a) states that a “covered employee,” defined as an employee of a motor carrier whose job, “in whole or in part,” affects the safe operation of vehicles lighter than 10,000 pounds (with an exception not relevant here),

As Judge Fuentes concluded, plaintiff’s job “placed her squarely within the Corrections Act’s definition of a ‘covered employee.’  McMaster was a driver and guard of commercial armored vehicles, and approximately half of her trips were on vehicles undisputedly lighter than 10,000 pounds.”  The plain language of the statute compelled the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to overtime, under the Corrections Act exception to the Motor Carrier Act Exemption, and most other courts that considered this same issue had agreed.  Judge Fuentes found unpersuasive a few District Court cases that had found to the contrary based on a “policy statement” of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that had questioned the wisdom of dividing jurisdiction over drivers of trucks based on weight.  Such a policy concern could not overcome the plain language of the Corrections Act.

Eastern made one other argument:  that plaintiff’s right to overtime pay should be limited to weeks in which she had actually performed work on vehicles whose weight was less than 10,000 pounds.  But Judge Fuentes observed that Eastern had not made that argument to the District Court, and therefore had waived that contention on appeal.