777 F. Supp. 2d 920
W.D. Pa.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Frito-Lay violated PMWA by failing to pay overtime for hours worked and to record all hours; period runs from April 21, 2006 through present, with pre-2006 exemptions under PMCE disputed.
- Defendant moves for partial summary judgment asserting PMCE exemption applies for all plaintiffs throughout the period, or at least until June 6, 2008, and that FWW method properly compensates overtime.
- Plaintiffs contend SAFETEA-LU amendments modulated PMCE applicability post-2005, and that FWW calculations do not satisfy PMWA requirements; factual record centers on route salespersons’ duties and vehicle weights.
- Court must determine (i) whether PMCE applies and how SAFETEA-LU/TCA amendments affect it, (ii) whether hybrid vehicle fleets affect exemptions, (iii) whether post-2008 PMCE restores exemption, and (iv) whether FWW method complies with PA law.
- Frito-Lay’s employee classification depends on whether a Secretary of Transportation jurisdiction applies to each plaintiff’s duties and vehicle weights.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motion, including a Cerutti-specific exemption finding and a post-2008 PMCE restoration for the remaining plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PMCE applicability over the period | Cerutti and others not fully exempt post-2005 | PMCE applies for entire period or at least until 2008 | Partial summary judgment for defendant on applicability for Cerutti; others require record evidence |
| Effect of SAFETEA-LU and TCA on PMCE | SAFETEA-LU changes incorporated into PMCE; drivers may be exempt | PMCE not updated by SAFETEA-LU within 1990 adoption | PMCE incorporation of post-1990 MCA amendments acknowledged; substantial issues remain for other plaintiffs before 2008 |
| Post-2008 PMCE restoration | After June 6, 2008, drivers regain PMCE exemption | FMCE/PMCE interpretations restrict exemptions | PMCE applies after June 6, 2008; plaintiffs exempt under PMCE, subject to record evidence for others |
| Validity of FWW overtime calculations under PMWA | FWW method not permitted under 34 Pa.Code § 231.43(d) | FWW method permitted under federal guidance and PA practice | FWW method does not comport with 34 Pa.Code § 231.43(d); not decisive for overall liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Packard v. Pittsburgh Transp. Co., 418 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2005) (affirmative defense exemptions construed narrowly under FLSA/PMWA)
- Barshak v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 106 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 1997) (statutory construction and interpretation of incorporated federal provisions)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (summary judgment standard; credibility not evaluated at SJ)