Arlington v. Miller S Trucking
2017 MT 719
Mont.2017Background
- Oliver W. Arlington, pro se, sued Miller’s Trucking claiming unpaid wages ($25,568.32) and overtime ($46,101.81) for work as a log truck driver/loader (Sept 2008–Aug 2009) based on an alleged oral agreement to earn $60,000–$70,000/year.
- Initial Hearing Officer dismissed Arlington’s claims for lack of substantial evidence; district court affirmed; this Court remanded in 2012 for additional discovery and held Arlington was not FLSA-exempt.
- On remand Arlington presented more evidence; Hearing Officer again rejected the oral guaranteed-salary claim; this Court in 2015 affirmed that rejection but found the agency applied too-heavy proof standards on hours worked, reversed in part, and remanded for overtime calculation.
- On the 2015 remand the Hearing Officer accepted Arlington’s hours, applied a pieceworker-style calculation (Admin. R. M. 24.16.2512(2)(b)) to derive an hourly baseline from Arlington’s 25% load rate, corrected any weeks below minimum wage, and awarded $7,417.39 in unpaid overtime/minimum wages plus a statutory penalty (110% reduced to 55% if paid within 30 days).
- District court affirmed the 2015 Remand Final Agency Decision; Arlington appealed arguing the wage calculation violated this Court’s remand instructions and that the 55% reduced penalty was improper; he sought $37,255.05, a full 110% penalty, costs, and fees.
- The Supreme Court issued a memorandum opinion affirming the district court: agency findings were supported by substantial evidence; the pieceworker method and penalty reduction were properly applied; attorney fees on appeal were not addressed because the district court’s judgment did not award fees and the issue was not cross-appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to calculate wages (pieceworker/analogous method) | Arlington: Hearing Officer misapplied Arlington II remand instructions; calculation shortchanges wages | Miller’s: Hearing Officer correctly used analogous pieceworker method per rule to determine baseline hourly wage and ensured minimum wage compliance | Court: Affirmed agency’s use of the pieceworker method and wage calculations as supported by substantial evidence |
| Hours worked (acceptance of Arlington’s hours on remand) | Arlington: Accepted hours should be used to calculate overtime | Miller’s: Disputed hours previously; on remand agency accepted Arlington’s hours and computed pay accordingly | Court: Agency properly accepted Arlington’s hours per prior remand and proceeded to calculate wages |
| Statutory penalty percentage (110% vs reduced 55%) | Arlington: Seeks full 110% penalty, argues reduction improper | Miller’s: Supports agency’s reduced 55% penalty if wages paid within 30 days as allowed by agency discretion/statute | Court: Affirmed Hearing Officer’s application of reduced 55% penalty option as permissible |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Arlington: sought fees and costs | Miller’s: requested fees under §39-3-214 but did not cross-appeal district court’s judgment | Court: Denied consideration; district court’s judgment awarded no fees and appellant did not cross-appeal that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking, 364 Mont. 534, 277 P.3d 1198 (Mont. 2012) (remanded for additional discovery and held employee not exempt)
- Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking, 378 Mont. 324, 343 P.3d 1222 (Mont. 2015) (affirmed rejection of oral guaranteed-salary claim but reversed on standard applied to hours and remanded for overtime calculation)
- Ostergren v. Department of Revenue, 319 Mont. 405, 85 P.3d 122 (Mont. 2004) (standard of review for agency decisions)
- Schmidt v. Cook, 326 Mont. 202, 108 P.3d 511 (Mont. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence review)
- State Personnel Division v. Child Support Investigators, 308 Mont. 365, 43 P.3d 305 (Mont. 2002) (explaining substantial-evidence standard)