Deherrera v. Decker Truck Line, Inc.
820 F.3d 1147
10th Cir.2016Background
- Decker Truck Line contracted with New Belgium Brewing to transport beer from its brewery to a nearby warehouse (the “Rez”) and to backhaul empty kegs, pallets, hops, and other materials from the Rez to the brewery; the facilities are ~5 miles apart in Colorado.
- New Belgium shipped most finished beer out of state; about 86–89% of beer at the Rez was later shipped outside Colorado during the relevant period. New Belgium controlled inventory and scheduling at the Rez.
- Plaintiffs (Decker drivers) performed intrastate pickups/deliveries between the brewery and the Rez and returned materials (backhauls) to the brewery; many backhauled items originally arrived at the Rez from out-of-state.
- Plaintiffs sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA and Colorado’s Wage Order, alleging long workweeks and unpaid breaks/off-the-clock time; Decker asserted the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption and Wage Order exemptions for interstate drivers.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Decker; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Plaintiffs’ backhauls were part of interstate commerce and therefore Plaintiffs were exempt from FLSA and Wage Order overtime requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs’ work placed them in "interstate commerce" for MCA exemption to FLSA | Backhaul/intrastate segments were purely intrastate; MC-48 factors show no fixed intent beyond the Rez | Backhauls were part of a continuous interstate movement; materials were bound for the brewery and indispensable to production | Drivers were engaged in interstate commerce via backhauls; MCA exemption applies (summary judgment affirmed) |
| Proper test to determine shipper's ‘‘fixed and persisting intent’’ after temporary storage | Foxworthy/MC-48 should be dispositive and narrowly applied | Courts and agencies use broader MC-207/fact-specific approach beyond MC-48; consider all circumstances | Court may consider broader factors (MC-207 approach); Foxworthy did not limit analysis to MC-48 alone |
| Whether minimal interstate activity suffices to invoke MCA exemption | Plaintiffs implied minimal interstate content shouldn’t automatically exempt all work | Even minimal interstate loads can place drivers within MCA jurisdiction | Even small interstate movements (backhauls) can trigger the exemption |
| Whether Colorado Wage Order covers drivers or exempts them as "interstate drivers" | Drivers fall within Wage Order’s covered industries (e.g., Commercial Support Service) and not exempt | Wage Order separately exempts interstate drivers; interstate drivers should be read in harmony with FLSA/MCA meaning | Drivers are "interstate drivers" under the Wage Order (harmonized with MCA analysis) and thus exempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Foxworthy v. Hiland Dairy Co., 997 F.2d 670 (10th Cir. 1993) (backhaul intrastate leg can place a driver in interstate commerce)
- Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (1943) (temporary storage does not necessarily terminate interstate journey)
- Project Hope v. M/V IBN SINA, 250 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2001) (shipment character fixed by intent at departure across multiple carriers)
- Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distribs., 300 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2002) (focus on intended final destination when transport began)
- Lederman v. Frontier Fire Prot., 685 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2012) (FLSA exemptions must fall plainly and unmistakably within statute)
- Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992) (relying on backhaul shipments to find interstate commerce)