Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc.
209 Cal. App. 4th 62
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cox is a California trucking company; Bell and other drivers sue for wage-and-hour violations.
- Plaintiffs allege failure to pay overtime, meal/rest periods, off-the-clock wages, and vacation benefits (including upon termination).
- Trial court granted summary adjudication for some counts (overtime, promised vacation, and termination vacation) and held many claims preempted by ERISA.
- Court conducted bench and jury trials on different issues, including motor carrier exemption for overtime and meal/rest period conflicts.
- Trial court found drivers exempt from FLSA overtime under the motor carrier exemption; jury found no meal/rest violations; judgment issued in Cox’s favor on most counts.
- Appellants challenge ERISA preemption, policy legality, witness exclusion, motor carrier exemption, jury instructions, and attorney-fee award; appellate court reverses some portions and affirms others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERISA preemption of vacation counts | ERISA-funded plan preempts state vacation claims | Vacation plan funded from general assets; ERISA preemption applies | Triable issue on ERISA preemption; reversal on this basis not upheld |
| Legality of Cox’s vacation policy | Policy paying flat unused vacation violates Labor Code 227.3 | Policy legal as applied to current employees | Policy valid for current employees; ERISA issues require further fact-finding for termination count |
| Motion to exclude witnesses at trial | Non-disclosed witnesses should be excluded | No willful misrepresentation; no sanction warranted | Denial of exclusion proper; no abuse of discretion |
| FLSA motor carrier exemption applicability | Drivers not engaged in interstate commerce; exempt status unsupported | Drivers reasonably could be assigned to interstate routes; exempt status supported | No error in finding drivers could be assigned to interstate routes; exemption upheld |
| Jury instructions and instructional error | Proposed instructions correctly stated law | Court adequately instructed; no prejudicial error | No instructional error proved; given instructions adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1983) (ERISA preemption framework and broad preemption scope cited for employee-benefit plans)
- Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1989) (ERISA preemption depends on whether plan funded separately; vacation as wages examined)
- Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., 31 Cal.3d 774 (Cal. 1982) (Vacation pay as deferred wages; for termination, vesting rules under Labor Code 227.3)
- Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1947) (Motor carrier exemption scope includes drivers reasonably could be called to interstate routes)
- Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1943) (Interstate commerce continuity concept for intrastate deliveries)