Ashley McMaster v. Eastern Armored Services Inc
780 F.3d 167
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Ashley McMaster worked as a driver/guard for Eastern Armored Services (Mar 2010–Jun 2011), paid hourly and often worked >40 hours/week without overtime.
- She was assigned to different armored vehicles; about 51% of her workdays were on vehicles rated over 10,000 lbs and 49% on vehicles rated under 10,000 lbs.
- Eastern is a motor carrier; McMaster’s routes included interstate travel and vehicles were not designed to carry hazardous materials or ≥8 passengers.
- McMaster sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming entitlement to overtime for hours over 40 based on a Corrections Act amendment to the Motor Carrier Act Exemption.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for McMaster; Eastern appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) arguing the Motor Carrier Act Exemption still barred overtime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corrections Act §306(a) removes the Motor Carrier Act Exemption for "covered employees" | McMaster: Corrections Act plainly extends FLSA §7 overtime to "covered employees," so she is entitled to overtime. | Eastern: Motor Carrier Act Exemption remains absolute; administrability and policy counsel against dividing regulation. | The court held the Corrections Act unambiguously makes "covered employees" entitled to FLSA overtime notwithstanding §13(b)(1). |
| Whether McMaster meets the Corrections Act definition of a "covered employee" | McMaster: Her duties "in whole or in part" affected safe operation of vehicles <10,000 lbs, so she is covered. | Eastern: (implicitly) she remains within the exemption because much of her work was on heavier vehicles and administrability concerns. | The court held McMaster meets the "covered employee" definition (49% of days on <10,000-lb vehicles satisfies "in part"). |
| Whether prior policy-based precedent (avoid splitting regulation) overrides the Corrections Act text | McMaster: Statutory text controls; policy cannot override an express change by Congress. | Eastern: Policy and prior case law caution against splitting DOT/FLSA regulation for the same drivers. | The court rejected policy overrides, holding clear statutory language controls. |
| Whether alternative damages theory (overtime only for weeks actually on <10,000-lb vehicles) is preserved | McMaster: not applicable; she sought full application of Corrections Act. | Eastern: argued entitlement only for weeks when she drove <10,000-lb vehicles (not raised below). | Court deemed that alternative argument waived because not raised in district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Packard v. Pittsburgh Transp. Co., 418 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2005) (discussing Motor Carrier Act Exemption and scope of DOT jurisdiction)
- Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp. LLC, 650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011) (statutory text controls absent clear contrary legislative intent)
- Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd., 589 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2009) (policy concern about dividing regulatory jurisdiction across the same drivers)
- McCall v. Disabled American Veterans, 723 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2013) (measuring vehicle coverage by Gross Vehicle Weight Rating for exemption analysis)
- Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2014) (observing Corrections Act may create an exception to the Motor Carrier Act Exemption)