2018 COA 17
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Brunson worked as a SuperShuttle/airport shuttle van driver transporting passengers between Denver International Airport and in-state destinations and sued for unpaid overtime under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and Colorado Wage Claim Act as implemented by Colorado Minimum Wage Order No. 31 (Wage Order).
- Wage Order § 5 exempts “interstate drivers” from all of its provisions but does not define that term; Wage Order applies only to work performed within Colorado.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants (Shamrock Charters, Inc. and Colorado Cab Co.) after concluding federal FLSA/Motor Carrier Act (MCA) case law treats some intrastate drivers as engaged in interstate commerce and thus exempt.
- On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the regulatory text de novo, found the term “interstate drivers” ambiguous, and examined agency guidance and the relationship to federal law.
- The Department of Labor’s 2012 Advisory Bulletin (persuasive agency guidance) defines “interstate drivers” as those whose work takes them across state lines and treats intrastate drivers differently, supporting greater worker protections under Colorado law.
- The court reversed summary judgment, holding federal MCA/FLSA interpretations are not controlling because Colorado’s exemption is not sufficiently identical to the federal one and the Department’s Bulletin reasonably construes the Wage Order to exempt only drivers who cross state lines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shuttle drivers who operate entirely within Colorado but whose work relates to interstate travel are "interstate drivers" exempt from Colorado overtime | Brunson: "interstate drivers" in Wage Order does not cover drivers who never cross state lines; he is entitled to overtime | Shamrock: federal MCA/FLSA case law treats certain intrastate drivers as interstate for exemption purposes, so Brunson is exempt | Held: "interstate drivers" under Wage Order means drivers whose work crosses state lines; intrastate drivers are not categorically exempt |
| Whether federal MCA/FLSA interpretations should control Wage Order construction | Brunson: Colorado law can and should provide greater protection than FLSA; federal law not controlling | Shamrock: Colorado Wage Order parallels FLSA/MCA exemptions so federal case law is persuasive | Held: Federal case law is not persuasive or controlling because the state exemption language differs and Colorado may provide greater protections |
| Whether agency guidance (Advisory Bulletin) interpreting "interstate drivers" is entitled to deference | Brunson: Department Bulletin supports a narrow, state-protective reading | Shamrock: Bulletin is not binding and federal precedent should guide | Held: The Advisory Bulletin is persuasive under Skidmore-style review and supports defining "interstate drivers" as those who cross state lines |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the exemption ambiguity | Brunson: Defendants failed to show he was plainly and unmistakably exempt | Shamrock: Exemption applies as a matter of law | Held: Reversed — defendants did not carry burden to show plain and unmistakable exemption; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Deherrera v. Decker Truck Line, Inc., 820 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2016) (federal MCA/FLSA interpretation treating some intrastate drivers as covered by interstate exemption)
- Abel v. S. Shuttle Servs., Inc., 631 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying MCA/FLSA analysis to airport shuttle drivers)
- Foxworthy v. Hiland Dairy Co., 997 F.2d 670 (10th Cir. 1993) (interpreting MCA/FLSA exemption for drivers moving goods in interstate commerce)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (agency interpretations are persuasive to the extent they have the power to persuade)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference principles for agency interpretations of their own regulations)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) (limits on deference to informal agency interpretations)
- Colonial Bank v. Colo. Fin. Servs. Bd., 961 P.2d 579 (Colo. App.) (federal law is persuasive when state and federal statutes are identical or substantially so)