Fox v. Commonwealth Worldwide Chauffeured Transportation of NY, LLC
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45675
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Commonwealth operates as a New York City area car service with a fleet including SUVs and vans used for interstate transportation and paid by customers; drivers receive hourly pay plus a service charge that is not included in overtime calculation; Fox worked as a chauffeur November 2007–March 2008 and was paid $7.50/hour with overtime at $11.25; a background check revealed prior misdemeanors; Commonwealth suspended Fox for four days pending internal review and then terminated the employment discussion escalated; Fox filed suit alleging FLSA overtime violations, NY Labor Law overtime violations, NYHRL discrimination, and FCRA violations; Fox moved for conditional certification under § 16(b) of the FLSA in January 2011; Commonwealth moved for summary judgment on all claims; the court issued a memorandum and order granting summary judgment for Commonwealth and denying certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motor carrier exemption governs overtime claims | Fox argues exemptions do not apply; no evidence motor carrier status or exemption applies. | Commonwealth contends Fox was a motor-carrier employee and exempt from FLSA overtime. | Motor carrier exemption applies; summary judgment for Commonwealth on FLSA overtime. |
| Labor Law overtime exemptions | Fox contends NY Labor Law overtime should apply | Labor Law overtime incorporates FLSA exemptions; Fox exempt. | Labor Law overtime exemptions apply; summary judgment for Commonwealth. |
| FCRA claim viability | Fox claims Commonwealth violated FCRA by failing to provide a copy of the report and rights; willfulness or negligence alleged. | No evidence of willful or negligent noncompliance; complaint lacks such allegations. | FCRA claim fails as a matter of law; summary judgment for Commonwealth. |
| NYHRL discrimination claim viability | Fox alleges protection under Correction Law for prior convictions; seeks adverse employment action evidence. | No adverse employment action shown; suspension was temporary and justified. | No adverse employment action; NYHRL claim fails; summary judgment for Commonwealth. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (1947) (Motor carrier exemption depends on power to set maximum hours, not actual exercise)
- Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649 (1947) (Classification of workers directly affecting safety; motor carrier scope)
- Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695 (1947) (Interstate transportation nexus for safety; employer obligation)
- United States v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 310 U.S. 534 (1940) (Interstate transportation framework for motor carrier exemptions)
- Avery v. Chariots For Hire, 748 F.Supp.2d 492 (D. Md. 2010) (Majority rule requiring nexus between worker duties and use of commercial vehicles)
- Vidinliev v. Carey Int’l, Inc., 581 F.Supp.2d 1281 (N.D. Ga. 2008) (Interstate travel potential; motor carrier exemption applied)
- Khan v. IBI Armored Servs., 474 F.Supp.2d 448 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (Application of FLSA exemptions to Labor Law overtime claims)
- James v. N.Y. Racing Ass’n, 233 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2000) (NYHRL claims analogous to federal claims for adverse action framework)
- Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006) (Definition of adverse employment action under NYHRL)