Johnson v. HIX WRECKER SERVICE, INC.
651 F.3d 658
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson, a former Hix Wrecker tow truck driver, alleged he did not receive overtime pay under the FLSA.
- Hix Wrecker held a Department of Transportation common-carrier certificate allowing interstate transport.
- Johnson worked roughly four months (June to October 2006) and allegedly was paid no overtime for 12-hour shifts.
- Hix asserted Johnson fell under the motor carrier exemption to the FLSA, excluding him from overtime requirements.
- District court granted summary judgment for Hix, relying on Ms. Neil’s affidavit to prove exemption.
- This court reversed, holding Hix failed to prove the exemption as a matter of law and that genuine issues of material fact remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson is exempt under the motor carrier exemption | Johnson contends he was not subject to interstate-transport exemption. | Hix argues Johnson was exempt due to interstate assignments. | Exemption not established as a matter of law; genuine issues remain. |
| Whether Hix bore the burden to prove exemption and did so conclusively | Johnson argues the burden shifted to Hix and not met by the evidence. | Hix contends it satisfied the burden with Neil’s affidavit and certifications. | Hix failed to prove exemption as a matter of law; district court erred. |
| Whether Johnson's cross-motion for summary judgment on exemption should have been granted | Johnson argued he was exempt or the record raised no genuine issue of exemption. | Hix maintained Johnson was exempt, so cross-motion moot or improper. | Issues of exemption raised genuine disputes; cross-motion not foreclosed. |
| Whether Johnson's claim against individual allegedly as 'employers' should be addressed | Johnson asserted individuals were personally liable if not exempt. | District court did not reach this issue because it found exemption. | Not decided; remanded for consideration of employer liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reich v. American Driver Service, Inc., 33 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1994) (outlines motor carrier jurisdiction under the MCSA)
- Goldberg v. Faber Indus., Inc., 291 F.2d 232 (7th Cir. 1961) (establishes scope of motor carrier exemption and jurisdiction)
- Klein v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 990 F.2d 279 (7th Cir. 1999) (exemptions narrowly construed against employers)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting considerations)
- Reserve Supply Corp. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 971 F.2d 37 (7th Cir. 1992) (summary judgment burdens on movant with burden of proof)
- In re Bressman, 327 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2003) (burden on movant to support moves with credible evidence)
- Stockwell v. City of Harvey, 597 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming on other grounds where record supports it)