Donald Allen v. Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C
755 F.3d 279
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs are oil‑well service employees (various field positions) who worked in four CTS districts and sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA (2005–2008 period).
- CTS operated nationwide districts under one DOT number; districts sometimes shared personnel/equipment and accepted out‑of‑area jobs.
- District court used a Bellwether group for discovery, then (after reconsideration) certified a class of "Field Service Employees" (FSEs) and excluded certain positions and offshore work.
- The core legal question is whether the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to the FLSA applies — i.e., whether the DOT has jurisdiction because employees are reasonably likely to engage in activities directly affecting safety of interstate motor vehicle operations.
- The district court applied a company‑wide analysis (finding ~7% of land projects were interstate and assignments were indiscriminate) and granted summary judgment for CTS as to many plaintiffs; plaintiffs obtained interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate unit of analysis for MCA interstate‑activity measurement | Analysis must be employee‑by‑employee (individualized); district‑level differences matter | Company‑wide analysis is proper because CTS is the single employer and employees form a class with similar duties | Affirmed company‑wide class analysis; employee‑by‑employee approach foreclosed by Songer and facts do not support district‑by‑district analysis |
| Whether FSEs engage in activities directly affecting safety of interstate motor operations | Many named plaintiffs rarely/never drove interstate; reasonable expectation of interstate driving is lacking in some districts | Land‑based FSEs as a class had similar duties and a reasonable expectation to be assigned interstate trips (company‑wide ~7%) | FSEs (land‑based) are subject to MCA exemption because company‑wide evidence shows reasonable expectation of interstate assignments |
| Whether company districts should be treated separately | District percentages of interstate trips show some districts had negligible interstate activity, so district analysis required | Districts operated under one DOT, shared resources, and assignments could be company‑wide — so district subdivision is unwarranted | District‑by‑district analysis rejected; districts not separate employers and facts/legal authority insufficient to treat them separately |
| Whether district court could extend bellwether rulings to all plaintiffs | Non‑bellwether plaintiffs lacked explicit 10‑day notice of summary judgment (per pre‑2010 precedent) | Rule 56 amended in 2010 removing the 10‑day requirement; CTS requested rulings apply company‑wide and plaintiffs had opportunity to respond | Extension to all plaintiffs upheld (Rule 56 amendment and opportunity to be heard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695 (1947) (courts must determine for each employee whether job activities, as a whole or in substantial part, fall within classes the ICC defined that affect interstate safety)
- Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649 (1947) (ICC findings about which job classes affect safety are due deference; analysis focuses on character of activities)
- Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (1947) (group allocation of indiscriminately assigned interstate trips can create a reasonable expectation of interstate work for all drivers)
- United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534 (1940) (MCA jurisdiction limited to employees whose activities affect safety of operation)
- Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc., 618 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2010) (applied class‑level reasonable‑expectation analysis to drivers where a small percentage of trips were interstate and assignments were indiscriminate; employee‑by‑employee approach rejected)