Joseph Resch v. Krapf's Coaches Inc
785 F.3d 869
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Krapf’s Coaches, Inc. (KCI) operates a Transit Division of scheduled bus/shuttle routes; between 2009–2012 it ran 32 routes, 4 of which crossed state lines, generating 1.0%–9.7% of Transit Division revenue in a year.
- Plaintiffs are 34 Transit Division drivers who sometimes worked >40 hours/week without overtime pay; most rarely or never drove interstate (178 of 13,956 trips, 1.3%, were interstate).
- KCI trains drivers on multiple routes (interstate and intrastate), maintains discretion to assign drivers to any route they are trained on, and disciplines drivers who refuse assignments.
- KCI is a DOT-regulated motor carrier: it requires CDLs, maintains DOT Driver Qualification Files, issues FMCSA guidance pocketbooks, and has drivers self-certify interstate status.
- District Court conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA and PMWA but granted summary judgment to KCI, holding the drivers fall within the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to FLSA/PMWA overtime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCA exemption to FLSA/PMWA applies to KCI drivers | Resch: many drivers rarely/never crossed state lines so exemption shouldn’t apply; de minimis or individualized analysis required | KCI: employer is a DOT-regulated motor carrier and drivers are in a class reasonably expected to perform interstate driving due to training, policy, and assignments | MCA exemption applies; drivers are exempt from overtime |
| Whether class-of-work (safety-affecting activities) element is met | Resch: individual employment circumstances matter; those who never/rarely drove interstate are outside exemption | KCI: the character of duties (driving) and company practice make drivers part of class affecting interstate safety regardless of proportion of time spent interstate | Class-of-work satisfied; drivers’ duties directly affect safety in interstate commerce |
| Whether de minimis exception applies | Resch: KCI’s interstate operations are minimal (small percentage of trips) so de minimis should bar exemption | KCI: interstate activity and regulatory compliance (CDLs, FMCSA rules, DOT audits) negate de minimis; courts seldom apply de minimis to drivers | De minimis exception rejected; drivers seldom fall within it and facts here not de minimis |
| Whether individualized inquiries for each driver preclude summary judgment | Resch: need individualized analysis of each driver’s actual interstate activity | KCI: company-wide policies and practices create a reasonable expectation that any driver could be assigned interstate trips | No genuine dispute; summary judgment proper because class-level evidence shows reasonable expectation of interstate driving |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1947) (holding drivers are within MCA exemption where class of drivers is indiscriminately assigned interstate trips)
- Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1947) (explaining MCA’s separation of DOT regulation from FLSA on hours/safety)
- Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695 (U.S. 1947) (distinguishing work whose character excludes safety effect from MCA coverage)
- Packard v. Pittsburgh Transp. Co., 418 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2005) (FLSA exemptions construed narrowly; employer bears burden to prove exemption)
- Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1986) (whether particular activities are excluded from FLSA is a legal question)
- Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing when interstate business may be de minimis for MCA purposes)