Levias v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n
760 F. Supp. 2d 1036
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- Levias and Lemon sue PMA and 11 PMA employer-members, alleging FLSA and MWA violations for pre-shift travel, wait, and preparatory time.
- ILWU intervenes; case proceeds on cross-motions for summary judgment; court grants defendants’ motions.
- PCA and PCLCA govern longshore work; dispatch halls distribute work under a joint union-employer system.
- Dispatched longshore workers travel from Local 19 dispatch hall to Seattle terminals, then report to muster area for shift start.
- Plaintiffs seek compensation for travel from dispatch hall to job site, port gate wait/transfer time, and pre-shift equipment prep.
- Court analyzes whether dispatch hall is a PMA worksite, whether travel/wait/prep are compensable under FLSA and MWA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the dispatch hall a PMA worksite? | The hall is jointly owned/operated and hires workers for PMA members. | Hall is union-controlled; not a PMA worksite; hires occur at jobsite after dispatch. | Not a PMA worksite; hall not controlled as employer’s premises. |
| Are pre-shift travel from dispatch hall to job site compensable under the FLSA? | Travel is integral to the job and primarily for employer benefit. | Travel is ordinary home-to-work travel or, at most, continuous workday only if applicable. | Not compensable under FLSA; ordinary travel, not an indispensable principal activity. |
| Are pre-shift travel/muster wait times compensable under the MWA? | Waiting and badge-through time at the port gate are compensable. | Waiting and badge-in are not on-duty at a prescribed workplace and not compensable. | Not compensable under MWA; travel and wait time not 'on duty' or indispensable. |
| Are pre-shift preparatory activities (donning gear, equipment checks) compensable? | Donning safety gear and pre-shift checks are integral and indispensable. | Donning non-unique gear is optional or de minimis and can occur off-premises. | Not compensable; gear is non-unique or de minimis; checks largely voluntary and not indispensable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muscoda Local No. 123 v. Tennessee Coal & Iron, 321 U.S. 590 (1944) (work is for employer’s benefit; threshold definition of work)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956) (compensability of integral pre/postliminary activities under Portal-to-Portal Act)
- Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944) (exertion not sine qua non; wait-for-service as potential work)
- Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217 (2010) (donning/doffing gear; integral vs. convenience; de minimis analysis)
- Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894 (2003) (continuous workday rule; preliminary work may lead to compensation for subsequent work)
- Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901 (2004) (donning/doffing; plant-specific distinctions)
- Owens v. Local No. 169, Ass’n of Western Pulp & Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347 (1992) (contracts/agreements as factors; wait time and compensability framework)
- Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (1984) (de minimis time; four-factor approach to wait time and pre-shift work)
- Bernal v. TrueBlue, Inc., 730 F.Supp.2d 736 (2010) (dispatch office wait/commute not compensable under FLSA)
- Stevens v. Brink's Home Security, Inc., 162 Wash.2d 42 (2007) (MWA on-duty and 'on-prescribed-work-place' concepts)