Mazzarella v. Fast Rig Support, LLC, 823 F.3d 786

Plaintiffs (truck drivers) worked for Fast Rig Support, LLC and First Americans Shipping and Trucking, hauling water used in hydraulic fracturing within Pennsylvania and occasionally hauling wastewater for disposal.
Plaintiffs alleged they often worked >40 hours/week but were paid overtime only for hours >45/week, violating the FLSA and PMWA; parties stipulated to a conditional judgment allowing appeal on the MCA exemption issue.
Defendants sought to invoke the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to FLSA/PMWA overtime rules, arguing their operations involved interstate transportation of water/wastewater.
Defendants submitted limited evidence: a DOT interstate carrier certificate for First Americans, a news article about industry practices, and a short internal spreadsheet of intrastate shipments.
The District Court found the water was “property” but concluded Defendants failed to show a “continuous stream of interstate travel” or sufficient interstate intent; it entered judgment for overtime pay.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed de novo whether Defendants had plainly and unmistakably met their burden to show the MCA exemption applied and affirmed the District Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MCA exemption to FLSA/PMWA overtime applies	Drivers performed intrastate work not part of interstate commerce; entitled to overtime	Drivers’ hauling of water is part of a practical continuity of interstate movement (sometimes to OH/NY); DOT authority applies	Exemption does not apply — Defendants failed to show practical continuity of interstate movement or interstate intent
Whether DOT interstate operating authority certificate establishes interstate activity	Certificate insufficient to prove drivers engaged in interstate commerce	Certificate shows authorization to operate interstate, supporting exemption	Certificate alone is insufficient evidence of actual interstate transportation or continuity
Whether evidence supports that water remained unaltered and was part of integrated interstate shipments	Water is altered/contaminated by fracking, creating separate transactions and intrastate movement	Even if some shipments end out-of-state, that alone makes Defendants part of interstate stream	No adequate evidence that water remained unchanged or that shipments were an identifiable leg of interstate distribution
Burden of proof for MCA exemption	Exemptions should be narrowly construed; employer must show exemption	Defendants assert burden met by submitted materials and assertions	Employer bears burden to prove exemption plainly and unmistakably; Defendants did not meet it

Packard v. Pittsburgh Transp. Co., 418 F.3d 246 (3d Cir.) (employer must prove MCA exemption plainly and unmistakably)
Friedrich v. U.S. Comput. Servs., 974 F.2d 409 (3d Cir.) (exemptions construed narrowly against employers)
Resch v. Krapfs Coaches, Inc., 785 F.3d 869 (3d Cir.) (analysis focuses on employer class and class of work)
Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564 (U.S.) (practical continuity of movement can establish interstate commerce)
Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distribs., Inc., 300 F.3d 217 (2d Cir.) (intrastate deliveries can be part of continuous interstate movement)
Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd., 589 F.3d 895 (7th Cir.) (alteration of product during transport affects interstate-character analysis)
Foxworthy v. Hiland Dairy Co., 997 F.2d 670 (10th Cir.) (fixed and persisting intent at shipment start is probative of continuity)
Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (U.S.) (business operation details and proportion of interstate activity inform exemption analysis)