904 F.3d 1053
9th Cir.2018Background
- In 2015 California added Labor Code § 1720.9, making delivery of ready‑mixed concrete to public works subject to state prevailing wage requirements.
- Ready‑mix concrete is time‑sensitive, delivered in rotating‑drum mixer trucks, and drivers can (and sometimes must) control water and drum speed; asphalt is delivered differently and drivers lack the same control.
- A group of ready‑mix suppliers sued, alleging § 1720.9 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is preempted by the FAAAA; they obtained a district court injunction and summary judgment on equal protection.
- The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) moved to intervene to defend the law; the district court denied intervention.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for plaintiffs on equal protection, reversed denial of IBT intervention, and affirmed dismissal of the FAAAA preemption claim; the case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection: whether § 1720.9 irrationally singles out ready‑mix drivers | Section 1720.9 irrationally treats ready‑mix drivers the same as other materials drivers; no legally relevant differences justify the classification | Legislature could rationally distinguish ready‑mix drivers because they are more integrated in construction work, more skilled/critical for structural projects, and more heavily unionized (vulnerable to underbidding) | Reversed district court: statute survives rational‑basis review because conceivable rationales exist that are at least debatable |
| Intervention: whether IBT could intervene as of right to defend the law | Plaintiffs argued IBT lacked a significantly protectable interest, especially where many members already receive prevailing wages under CBAs | IBT argued it had a significant, protectable interest in preserving the statutory prevailing‑wage floor that supports members and collective bargaining | Reversed denial: IBT may intervene as of right (timely, protectable interest, impairment, and potential inadequate representation) |
| FAAAA preemption: whether § 1720.9 is preempted as relating to prices, routes, or services of motor carriers | Plaintiffs argued federal preemption bars state prevailing wage rule as it affects motor carrier services | State argued prevailing‑wage law is not related to prices, routes, or services within FAAAA's preemption clause | Affirmed dismissal: FAAAA does not preempt § 1720.9; law is not within FAAAA’s preemption scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (rational‑basis test framework for non‑suspect classifications)
- Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673 (standards for rational‑basis review and legislative factual deference)
- Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (courts accept legislative generalizations under rational‑basis review)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (legislature may base choices on rational speculation without empirical proof)
- Mendonca (Californians for Safe & Competitive Dump Truck Transportation v. Mendonca), 152 F.3d 1184 (IBT intervention to defend prevailing‑wage application to transportation services)
- Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (FAAAA preemption analysis reaffirming Mendonca)
- Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106 (standards and precedent on appealability of intervention rulings)
- Merrifield v. Lockyer, 547 F.3d 978 (distinguishable Ninth Circuit decision on impermissible economic protectionism)
- Fowler Packing Co. v. Lanier, 844 F.3d 809 (pleading stage inference of political favoritism; distinguished here)