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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT