Richard Alexander v. Tutle and Tutle Trucking
834 F.3d 866
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Tutle (a motor private carrier) employed Alexander and ten other Arkansas-based truck drivers; Tutle contracted to operate a fleet of Schlumberger-owned trucks and assigned drivers to that detail.
- Drivers were paid different rates on the Schlumberger detail, logged trips with E-Journey, and were told by some managers they would remain in Arkansas, but Tutle retained dispatch/control and could reassign drivers or trucks.
- During the relevant period, each plaintiff drove a Schlumberger truck out of Arkansas at least once (nine of eleven made interstate trips; several made multiple; five drivers spent ~one month hauling in OK/TX).
- Plaintiffs sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act; defendants invoked the Motor Carrier Act exemption to overtime (29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding a reasonable expectation of interstate driving (not de minimis); the Eighth Circuit affirmed on de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies | Drivers: designated to drive Schlumberger trucks primarily within Arkansas; interstate driving was rare and thus exemption doesn't apply | Tutle: drivers remained Tutle employees, under Tutle dispatch/control, and there was a reasonable expectation they would be directed to interstate trips | Exemption applies — drivers were subject to assignment to interstate work and interstate activity was not de minimis |
| Whether occasional interstate trips were de minimis | Drivers: interstate trips were infrequent and often for equipment moves, so trivial | Defs: any interstate driving by drivers affects safety and thus is not trivial; majority made multiple interstate trips | De minimis exception rejected — interstate driving affected safety and was not trivial |
| Relevance of recruiters’ oral assurances that drivers would stay in-state | Drivers: such statements show they reasonably expected no interstate work | Defs: written structure, dispatch control, reassignment authority, and actual interstate trips outweigh those statements | Court: recruiter statements insufficient to overcome objective evidence of reasonable expectation of interstate assignments |
| Whether Schlumberger (as possible joint employer) is covered by exemption | Drivers argued Schlumberger might be liable and not entitled to exemption | Court: assuming joint-employer status, Schlumberger would also be a carrier subject to DOT jurisdiction and thus entitled to exemption | Court assumed joint-employer status and concluded Schlumberger would likewise fall within exemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649 (driver’s duties affect motor-vehicle safety for exemption analysis)
- Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (focus on character of activities, not time proportion, for interstate-jurisdiction analysis)
- Starrett v. Bruce, 391 F.2d 320 (assignment-to-interstate-trip expectation supports exemption even if driver performed no interstate trips)
- Songer v. Dillon Res., Inc., 618 F.3d 467 (joint-employer can bring carrier within DOT jurisdiction for exemption)
- Resch v. Krapf’s Coaches, Inc., 785 F.3d 869 (drivers rarely qualify for de minimis exception)
- Crooker v. Sexton Motors, Inc., 469 F.2d 206 (interstate driving, however infrequent, affects safety and is not trivial)
- Thomas v. Heartland Emp’t Servs. LLC, 797 F.3d 527 (standard of review for summary judgment in FLSA cases)