Scott Nance v. May Trucking Company
685 F. App'x 602
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Scott Nance and Frederick Freedman sued May Trucking Company under the FLSA and Oregon wage laws challenging three pay policies: (1) unpaid mandatory three-day orientation for applicants; (2) pay practices for entry-level drivers who ride with experienced drivers (including time in sleeper berths); and (3) paycheck deductions for excess engine idling with fuel-cost adjustments.
- District court certified class/representative claims for the first two policies but denied certification for the idling-deduction claim; Freedman pursued the idling claim individually.
- On cross-motions, the district court granted partial summary judgment to May on the certified claims; after a one-day bench trial it awarded Freedman $200 on his individual idling-deduction claim but denied a statutory penalty for willful withholding and refused reconsideration of class-certification denial.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed most rulings: held orientation attendees were not employees; held sleeper-berth time need not be paid when drivers are permitted to sleep; affirmed denial of class certification for idling deductions; affirmed denial of willful-withholding penalty.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated in part and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether plaintiffs preserved a discrete minimum-wage claim about entry-level on-duty hours logged before April 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether orientation attendees are "employees" entitled to pay | Nance/Freedman: orientation is compensable work for applicants | May: orientation is part of application process; no employment relationship yet | Orientation attendees are not employees; no pay required under FLSA/Oregon law |
| Whether time in sleeper berths during ride-alongs is compensable | Plaintiffs: on-duty ride-along time (including in berth) should be paid | May: time when permitted to sleep in adequate facilities is not compensable under governing regulations | Court affirmed noncompensability when drivers may sleep in adequate employer-furnished berths |
| Whether entry-level drivers were paid below minimum wage for on-duty hours before April 2011 | Plaintiffs: may have minimum-wage shortfall for hours logged pre-April 2011 | May: (implicit) claim not preserved or not established | Ninth Circuit vacated judgment in part and remanded for district court to decide whether plaintiffs preserved this pre-April 2011 minimum-wage claim |
| Whether class certification was appropriate for idling-deduction claim | Plaintiffs: common questions predominate about unlawfulness of deductions | May: individualized proof required because deductions may be for drivers' benefit | Denial of class certification affirmed because individual inquiries (why each driver idled) predominate |
| Whether employer acted willfully to withhold wages (statutory penalty) | Freedman: deductions were unlawful and willful, warranting statutory penalty | May: lacked knowledge of shortfall; failure was not willful | District court factual finding that May lacked knowledge upheld; statutory penalty denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1985) (economic-reality test governs whether a person is an "employee" under FLSA)
- Williams v. Strickland, 87 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard of de novo review for mixed legal questions)
- Brigham v. Eugene Water & Elec. Bd., 357 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts may rely on Department of Labor regulations when interpreting compensable work-time issues)
- Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for class-certification denials)
- OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing bench-trial findings and mixed questions)
- Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp., 197 Or. App. 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2005) (under Oregon law, employer's failure to pay is not "willful" if based on reasonable lack of knowledge or unintentional miscalculation)