444 F. App'x 788
5th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are 41 former and current hourly employees of Coast 2 Coast, Inc. (C2C) who traveled the country in C2C’s rigs to chip concrete from inside mixer drums and other spaces.
- Chippers were paid hourly for time spent at job sites; travel and pre-departure time were generally unpaid.
- District court certified a chipper class and later granted partial summary judgment: MCA exemption applied to overtime, and minimum-wage claims were resolved in Defendants’ favor on the merits.
- SAFETEA-LU and TCA amendments shifted the scope of the MCA exemption over time, affecting whether certain drivers and helpers were exempt from FLSA overtime.
- The court held that the MCA exemption applied when truck and trailer weights were combined to meet the 10,001-pound threshold, under DOT regulations implementing the regulatory definition of commercial motor vehicle.
- The court sua sponte granted summary judgment on a subset of minimum-wage claims without adequate notice, reversing for remand on those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MCA exemption apply to overtime for C2C chippers? | C2C is not a motor carrier; weights cannot be combined to reach 10,001 pounds. | Weights may be combined; rigs meet the threshold; chippers fit within the exemption. | Yes; MCA exemption applies when weights are combined. |
| Was summary judgment on minimum-wage claims properly granted sua sponte with proper notice? | District court lacked notice; evidence could show minimum-wage violations. | Court had sufficient basis to decide; Plaintiffs failed to prove their rate fell below minimum wage. | No; sua sponte summary judgment without adequate notice was error. |
| Did the district court improperly grant summary judgment on the minimum-wage claims without addressing compensable time issues? | Plaintiffs sought judgment on specific compensable activities, not overall liability. | Defendants argued Plaintiffs failed to prove overall liability for minimum wage. | Remanded; merits depend on which activities are compensable. |
| Can Mt. Clemens representational evidence support a prima facie minimum-wage claim in this case? | Affidavits from six chipper plaintiffs show unreported hours representatively. | Evidence insufficient to establish a per-employee shortfall below minimum wage for all plaintiffs. | Yes; evidence raises material issues for remand on minimum-wage claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc., 618 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2010) (MCA exemption depends on employer class and work class; DOT authority extends to safety-related duties)
- Brennan v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 482 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1973) (representational evidence may prove overtime violations for non-testifying employees)
- Reich v. S. New England Telecomms. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (testimony from representative employees can establish a pattern of violations)
- Beliz v. W.H. McLeod & Sons Packing Co., 765 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1985) (minimum wage cases may rely on representative testimony to show hours worked)
- Klinghoffer Bros. Realty Corp., 285 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960) (Mt. Clemens standard and proof shifting in wage cases)