Opinion
CIVIL NO. CCB-07-3425.
November 25, 2008
MEMORANDUM
Now pending is the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which has not been opposed. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.
The Amended Complaint is based on the defendants' alleged failure to pay plaintiff Karl Hoover and similarly situated coworkers overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The plaintiff's remaining claim (all others having been voluntarily withdrawn) is for compensation for "ride time" from customer locations to the defendants' warehouse at the end of the work day. The defendants did not consider that as time worked for overtime purposes unless work was done upon arrival at the defendants' warehouse; typically, such work was not done.
The question for the court is whether Mr. Hoover is entitled to payment under the FLSA. Section 213(b)(1) of the FLSA exempts certain employees from overtime requirements if those employees are subject to the Secretary of Transportation's power to establish maximum hours under the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 31502. See Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422, 424 (1947) (finding that the overtime requirements of the FLSA do not apply to employees subject to regulation under the Motor Carrier Act); Brennan v. Schwerman Trucking Co. of Virginia, Inc., 540 F.2d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1976) (finding the Secretary of Transportation's power to establish maximum hours to be "determinative as to the applicability of the FLSA" and the § 213(b)(1) exemption).
This Act provides, in pertinent part: "The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for . . . qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation." 49 U.S.C. § 31502(b)(2).
In this case, the undisputed evidence establishes that from January 1992 through August 2007 Mr. Hoover was employed at Cimino's Office Systems Specialists, Inc., within the categories of driver, driver's helper, and loader. Further, his work involved the "safety of operation" of self-propelled motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight over 10,001 pounds and passenger vans designed or used to transport more than eight passengers, all being used for interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. §§ 13102(16) 31132(1); 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(d). Therefore, Mr. Hoover falls within the purview of the Motor Carrier Act and was exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and analogous Maryland law. Md. Code Ann., Lab. Empl. §§ 3-415(a) and (c); see Brennan, 540 F.2d at 1204; Smith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 890 F. Supp. 523, 528 (S.D. W.Va. 1995) (finding all employees who fell within the category of driver to be exempt from FLSA's overtime protection provision). Specifically, he was not entitled to overtime for "ride time" after completion of his duties at the last customer location at the end of the day; further, there was no "wilful" or "intentional" refusal by the defendants to pay Mr. Hoover wages due and owing.
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted by separate Order.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. the defendants' motion for summary judgment (docket entry no. 30) is Granted;
2. the plaintiff's motion to compel (docket entry no. 26) is Denied;
3. judgment is entered in favor of the defendants; and
4. the Clerk shall CLOSE this case, each side to bear its own costs.