Blair v. Transam Trucking, Inc.
309 F. Supp. 3d 977
D. Kan.2018Background
- Blair and Davis (and thousands of opt‑in/Rule 23 plaintiffs) sued TransAm alleging misclassification of leased truck drivers as independent contractors and failure to pay federal minimum wages plus improper wage deductions under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA) and the FLSA.
- Case long‑running; Pretrial Order framed three claims: (1) FLSA minimum wage collective under 29 U.S.C. § 206 (≈1,928 opt‑ins); (2) Rule 23 KWPA claim for unpaid minimum wages (≈8,691 class members); (3) Rule 23 KWPA claim for improper banking/card deductions.
- TransAm moved for judgment on the pleadings that KWPA does not provide a cause of action for FLSA minimum wages (and that any such state claim is preempted); it also moved to decertify the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class. Both sides filed summary judgment and multiple ancillary motions.
- The court held the KWPA does not provide a remedy for FLSA minimum‑wage claims and, in any event, a KWPA route to enforce federal minimum wages would be preempted by the FLSA; TransAm’s 12(c) motion was granted as to that claim.
- The court decertified the FLSA collective (individualized economic‑realities inquiries across drivers made collective adjudication unmanageable) and decertified the Rule 23 class (KWPA minimum‑wage claim dismissed and the remaining deductions claim lacked predominating common proof).
- Summary judgment rulings: Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on employee status denied; TransAm’s summary judgment granted in part (barred plaintiffs from seeking a three‑year limitations period/willful‑violation relief) and denied in part; many remaining motions rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unpaid FLSA minimum wages are "wages due" under the KWPA (and whether KWPA claim is preempted) | KWPA can be used to recover unpaid minimum/overtime wages (relying on Elkins and some district decisions) | KWPA does not create a remedy for statutory minimum wages (KMWMHL covers minimum/overtime and excludes FLSA‑covered employers); any KWPA attempt to recover FLSA minimum wages conflicts with and is preempted by the FLSA | KWPA does not provide a cause of action for FLSA minimum wages; to the extent it could be read to do so, it is preempted — TransAm 12(c) granted |
| Whether the conditionally certified FLSA collective should remain (are opt‑ins "similarly situated") | Classwide economic‑reality proof and representative evidence suffice; individualized damages calculations do not defeat collective treatment | Drivers’ economic‑realities differ substantially across six factors (control, profit/loss, investment, permanence, skill, integral part); defenses and damages are individualized making collective trial unmanageable | Decertified: plaintiffs not similarly situated; opt‑in plaintiffs dismissed |
| Whether the Rule 23 class should remain under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) | Classwide common issues predominate on KWPA claims (including deduction practices) | KWPA minimum‑wage claim dismissed; remaining deductions claim lacks common proof (many received direct deposit; multiple card vendors and individualized authorizations) and individual issues predominate | Decertified: Rule 23 class certification vacated |
| Summary judgment on employee status and damages; statute of limitations/willfulness | Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment that drivers are employees under FLSA and KWPA tests; and full damages | TransAm opposed, argued facts differ, and sought summary judgment on several grounds including no willful violation (thus limiting statutes) | Plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment denied; TransAm granted summary judgment limiting plaintiffs to two‑year limitations period (no willfulness shown); other TransAm SJ arguments denied as to remaining named plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Elkins v. Showcase, Inc., 704 P.2d 977 (Kan. 1985) (administrative decision construing KWPA deductions and interaction with FLSA tip‑credit rules)
- Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 335 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2014) (Kansas Supreme Court on employee status/right‑to‑control analysis)
- Chelsea Plaza Homes, Inc. v. Moore, 601 P.2d 1100 (Kan. 1979) (specific statute governing a field controls over a broader statute; canon applied to wage statutes)
- Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2001) (two‑step FLSA collective‑action certification framework)
- Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2007) (FLSA preemption of duplicative state law claims that depend on establishing FLSA violations)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (FLSA statute‑of‑limitations/willfulness framework)