Abel v. SOUTHERN SHUTTLE SERVICES, INC.
620 F.3d 1272
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Abel, a former driver for Southern Shuttle, worked December 2005 to June 2007 driving shuttle passengers to and from Florida airports.
- Abel was paid on a commission and tips basis, with no overtime compensation under FLSA.
- Southern Shuttle operates SuperShuttle, a shared-ride airport shuttle serving three South Florida airports, with intrastate trips in Florida.
- Customers often book via internet travel sites; vouchers are issued for free airport transport and Southern Shuttle invoices third-party travel companies.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Southern Shuttle on the MCA exemption, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed after vacating a prior panel decision.
- The panel focused on whether the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies to Southern Shuttle and to Abel’s shuttle-driving activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MCA exemption apply to Southern Shuttle's business? | Abel argues Southern Shuttle is not subject to the MCA. | Southern Shuttle contends its interstate-regulatory obligations meet MCA jurisdiction. | Yes, Southern Shuttle is subject to MCA jurisdiction. |
| Do Abel and Southern Shuttle's activities fall within interstate commerce under the MCA? | Abel's driving is purely intrastate and does not affect interstate safety. | The shuttle service has a practical continuity with interstate travel via package deals and vouchers. | Yes, the activities are within interstate commerce due to practical continuity with interstate travel. |
| Is there a through-ticketing/common-arrangement basis for MCA coverage? | Abel argues no separate agreement with an interstate carrier is required. | Southern Shuttle's voucher system and internet-booked package deals satisfy common-arrangement concepts. | Yes, a common arrangement suffices; through-ticketing is not required to be a distinct agreement. |
| Did the district court correctly apply the MCA exemption to Abel’s work as a driver? | Abel contends the exemption does not cover his job duties. | The driver’s duties directly affect safety and are within MCA jurisdiction because the shuttle service is interstate. | Yes, Abel’s duties fall within MCA jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. American Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2009) (establishes MCA exemptions and continuity concepts for interstate regulation)
- Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 427 (Sup. Ct. 1947) (interstate commerce extent and de minimis considerations)
- Yellow Cab Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct. 1947) (interstate commerce boundaries for passenger transportation)
- Packard v. Pittsburgh Transp. Co., 418 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2005) (intrastate passenger transport in proximity to interstate travel may be interstate)
- Baez v. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp., 938 F.2d 180 (11th Cir. 1991) (interstate reach of MCA exemptions and de minimis considerations)
- Opelika Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Goldberg, 299 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1962) (intrastate transportation as part of interstate movement)