Abel v. Southern Shuttle Services, Inc.
631 F.3d 1210
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Abel sued Southern Shuttle under the FLSA overtime provisions; prior panel vacated and remanded on MCA issues.
- Southern Shuttle operates SuperShuttle in three South Florida airports; drivers are paid on commission/tips with no overtime.
- Shuttles are intrastate within Florida; many reservations come from internet travel sites with vouchers used for payment to Southern Shuttle.
- District court granted summary judgment to Southern Shuttle on MCA exemption after considering whether the company and Abel’s work fall under the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction.
- Court relies on Walters, Morris, and Yellow Cab line of cases to assess interstate commerce and MCA jurisdiction; Secretary's reach turns on scope of interstate commerce, not mere formalities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCA exemption applies to Southern Shuttle | Abel argues no MCA coverage due to lack of interstate nexus | Southern Shuttle argues interstate nexus exists via package deals and vouchers | Yes; Southern Shuttle falls under MCA exemption based on interstate commerce connection |
| Whether Secretary has MCA jurisdiction over Southern Shuttle (first requirement) | Abel contends insufficient interstate relevance | Secretary jurisdiction exists given DOT licensing and movement across state lines via packages | Yes; Secretary has jurisdiction due to practical continuity with interstate travel |
| Whether Abel’s driving activities fall within the MCA’s second requirement | Abel’s driving may be intrastate and not affect interstate safety | Abel’s work directly affects safety in transporting passengers in interstate commerce | Yes; Abel’s activities directly affect safety and constitute interstate commerce under the MCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. American Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir.2009) (limits and scope of MCA exemption; interstate-continuity concepts)
- Morris v. United States Steel Corp., 332 U.S. 427 (Supreme Court 1947) (de minimis interstate commerce can still trigger MCA when part of continuous movement)
- Yellow Cab Company of District of Columbia v. United States, 332 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court 1947) (interstate journey concept; local portions can be part of interstate commerce)
- Packard v. Pittsburgh Transp. Co., 418 F.3d 246 (3d Cir.2005) (passenger transport intrastate not necessarily exempt unless part of broader interstate journey)
- Baez v. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp., 938 F.2d 180 (11th Cir.1991) (principles on MCA jurisdiction and reach)