220 A.3d 333
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Leonard Poe worked for IESI MD Corporation and was paid a fixed day rate (money per day, not per hour).
- Poe sometimes worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek and claimed he was entitled to overtime under Maryland law.
- IESI calculated overtime using 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 (the federal day‑rate regulation), which awards "extra half‑time" (50% of the regular hourly rate) for hours over 40.
- Poe sued, alleging the federal regulation understates overtime under Maryland law and that Maryland does not authorize that formula; the circuit court granted summary judgment for IESI, also invoking the Motor Carrier Act exemption.
- On appeal the Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment on the ground that the federal day‑rate regulation is consistent with Maryland Wage and Hour Law; it did not decide the Motor Carrier Act exemption issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 may be used to compute overtime for day‑rate employees under Maryland law | Poe: Maryland law requires payment of 1.5× the usual hourly wage per overtime hour; federal day‑rate reg is not adopted by Maryland and understates overtime | IESI: The federal regulation is a permissible, long‑standing interpretation of the parallel FLSA and is persuasive for interpreting Maryland law; day‑rate already compensates 100% of regular rate, so only extra half‑time is due | Court: Affirmed. The federal regulation is persuasive and consistent with Maryland statutes and COMAR; day‑rate employees are owed additional half‑time for hours over 40 (not an additional full 1.5× on top of the day rate) |
| Whether the Motor Carrier Act exemption (preempting state overtime law) applies | Poe: Exemption does not apply—no interstate commerce or only de minimis interstate activity | IESI: Exemption applies (circuit court relied on it) | Court: Did not reach on appeal; affirmed on the federal‑regulation ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446 (regular rate must be extracted from all wages)
- Dufrene v. Browning‑Ferris, Inc., 207 F.3d 264 (5th Cir.) (endorsing half‑time overtime method for day‑rate employees)
- Condo v. Sysco Corp., 1 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.) (same principle: day rate compensates 100% of regular rate; only 50% additional owed for overtime)
- Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (recognizing that fluctuating hours change effective hourly rate)
- Newell v. Runnells, 407 Md. 578 (Md. 2009) (recognizing Maryland Wage and Hour Law as state parallel to the FLSA)
- Immanuel v. Comptroller, 449 Md. 76 (Md. 2016) (federal interpretations may be persuasive when construing state counterparts)