ILNews

Appeals court reverses District Court on overtime pay

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a District Court’s finding that a tow truck driver was not entitled to overtime pay.

Bobby Johnson was a tow truck driver for Hix Wrecker for about four months, during which he worked 12-hour shifts. In the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Johnson and Hix filed cross motions for summary judgment, with Hix claiming that Johnson was not entitled to overtime pay due to the motor carrier exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Johnson argued he was not subject to the exemption and that the company’s owners and corporate secretary were individually liable for unpaid overtime wages.

The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime to employees who work more than 40 hours a week, according to 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1). Ordinarily, the employees of a motor carrier that engages wholly in intrastate commerce are subject to the Secretary of Labor’s jurisdiction, and consequently to the overtime and maximum hours provisions of the FLSA. In contrast, the employees of a motor carrier that engages in interstate commerce may come under the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction under the Motor Carrier Act 49 U.S.C. Section 31502. Under Section 31502(b), the Secretary of Transportation, rather than the Secretary of Labor, has the power to prescribe these employees’ qualifications and maximum hours of service.

Employees subject to the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction are exempt from the FLSA’s maximum hour and overtime provisions, and the motor carrier has the burden to show that an employee is exempt, the 7th Circuit noted.

Many motor carriers engage in both interstate and intrastate commerce, but a motor carrier employee cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of both the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Transportation simultaneously. Citing Goldberg v. Faber Indus., Inc., 291 F.2d 232, 234-35 (7th Cir. 1961), the Circuit Court held that an employee comes within the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction so long as the employee is “subject, at any time, to be[ing] assigned to interstate trips.”

In the District Court, Hix submitted an affidavit from its corporate secretary, Gail Neil, in support of its claim that the FLSA motor carrier exemption applied to Johnson because the company routinely provides out-of-state services. The appeals court disagreed.

In its opinion, Bobby Johnson Jr. v. Hix Wrecker Service Inc., et al., No. 09-3023, the court held that Neil’s affidavit did not show that Hix engaged in interstate commerce within a “reasonable period of time” prior to the time during which it claims the exemption for Johnson. It also held that the affidavit did not establish that Johnson was subject to being used in interstate commerce during the four-month period or during any other “reasonable period of time.”

Johnson argued that the District Court erred in not finding that he was entitled to summary judgment on his claim that the owners and secretary – as employers under the FLSA –  were liable for unpaid wages. The District Court, finding that Johnson was exempt, did not address that issue, so the appeals court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT