Drivers win $1M in California wage and hour class action case
December 29, 2014
Drivers win $1M in California wage and hour class action case
By Cathleen S. Yonahara, Freeland Cooper & Foreman LLP
After a bench trial in a wage and hour class action lawsuit, a California trial court awarded the class of truck drivers nearly $1 million in damages plus attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and class representative enhancements to the named drivers. The employer appealed on the ground that federal law preempts the application of California's meal and rest break requirements to motor carriers. Read on to find out the appellate court's decision.
Drivers sue for wage and hour violationsTwo truck drivers filed a class action lawsuit against Oakland Port Services Corp., d/b/a AB Trucking, for failing to pay drivers for all hours worked, misclassifying some drivers as unpaid trainees, and failing to provide required meal and rest breaks. The trial court certified a class of drivers who performed work for AB out of its Oakland facility, and the case proceeded to a bench trial.
On May 21, 2013, the trial court awarded the class a total of $964,557. AB filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the trial court awarded the drivers $487,810.50 in attorneys' fees, $42,106.16 in litigation expenses, and $20,000 in class representative enhancements.
Are meal, break claims preempted by federal law?AB argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts California law governing meal and rest breaks as applied to motor carriers. The FAAAA contains an express preemption clause stating: "A state, political subdivision of a state, or political authority of 2 or more states may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property."
Whether the FAAAA preempts California meal and rest break requirements as applied to motor carriers has never been decided by a California court. However, while this case was pending, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to California employers) issued a decision in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, holding that the FAAAA does not preempt California meal and rest break rules. The decision resolved a split among California federal district courts, nine of which had concluded that the FAAAA preempts California meal and rest break laws and four of which had held that there is no preemption.
The appellate court found the reasoning in Dilts persuasive and reached the same conclusion: The FAAAA does not preempt California state law applicable to meal and rest breaks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the AB drivers and upheld its postjudgment order awarding attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and class representative enhancements. Godfrey v. Oakland Port Services Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 10/28/14).
Bottom lineCalifornia law requires employers to permit employees to take a 30-minute duty-free meal break during a work period longer than five hours unless a work period of not more than six hours will complete the day's work. A second 30-minute meal period is required if an employee works more than 10 hours per day.
However, if an employee works no more than 12 total hours, the second meal period may be mutually waived by the employee and the employer if the first meal period was not waived. Further, under the California Wage Orders, employers must authorize and permit rest periods of 10 minutes for each four hours worked or a major fraction thereof unless the total daily work time is less than 3½ hours.
The California Supreme Court has interpreted the term "major fraction thereof" to mean any amount of time in excess of two hours—i.e., any fraction greater than one-half. Accordingly, employees are entitled to one 10-minute rest break for shifts from 3½ to six hours long, two 10-minute rest breaks for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, three 10-minute rest breaks for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.
If an employer fails to provide meal periods, it will be liable for up to one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday the meal period was not provided. If the employer also fails to provide the mandated rest periods, it will be liable for an additional hour of pay for each workday the rest periods are not provided. As this case demonstrates, even if the employer is a motor carrier, California meal and rest period laws are not preempted by the FAAAA.
Cathleen S. Yonahara, an editor of California Employment Law Letter, can be reached at Freeland Cooper & Foreman LLP in San Francisco, yonahara@freelandlaw.com.
Drivers win $1M in California wage and hour class action case
By Cathleen S. Yonahara, Freeland Cooper & Foreman LLP
After a bench trial in a wage and hour class action lawsuit, a California trial court awarded the class of truck drivers nearly $1 million in damages plus attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and class representative enhancements to the named drivers. The employer appealed on the ground that federal law preempts the application of California's meal and rest break requirements to motor carriers. Read on to find out the appellate court's decision.
Drivers sue for wage and hour violationsTwo truck drivers filed a class action lawsuit against Oakland Port Services Corp., d/b/a AB Trucking, for failing to pay drivers for all hours worked, misclassifying some drivers as unpaid trainees, and failing to provide required meal and rest breaks. The trial court certified a class of drivers who performed work for AB out of its Oakland facility, and the case proceeded to a bench trial.
On May 21, 2013, the trial court awarded the class a total of $964,557. AB filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the trial court awarded the drivers $487,810.50 in attorneys' fees, $42,106.16 in litigation expenses, and $20,000 in class representative enhancements.
Are meal, break claims preempted by federal law?AB argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts California law governing meal and rest breaks as applied to motor carriers. The FAAAA contains an express preemption clause stating: "A state, political subdivision of a state, or political authority of 2 or more states may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property."
Whether the FAAAA preempts California meal and rest break requirements as applied to motor carriers has never been decided by a California court. However, while this case was pending, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to California employers) issued a decision in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, holding that the FAAAA does not preempt California meal and rest break rules. The decision resolved a split among California federal district courts, nine of which had concluded that the FAAAA preempts California meal and rest break laws and four of which had held that there is no preemption.
The appellate court found the reasoning in Dilts persuasive and reached the same conclusion: The FAAAA does not preempt California state law applicable to meal and rest breaks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the AB drivers and upheld its postjudgment order awarding attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and class representative enhancements. Godfrey v. Oakland Port Services Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 10/28/14).
Bottom lineCalifornia law requires employers to permit employees to take a 30-minute duty-free meal break during a work period longer than five hours unless a work period of not more than six hours will complete the day's work. A second 30-minute meal period is required if an employee works more than 10 hours per day.
However, if an employee works no more than 12 total hours, the second meal period may be mutually waived by the employee and the employer if the first meal period was not waived. Further, under the California Wage Orders, employers must authorize and permit rest periods of 10 minutes for each four hours worked or a major fraction thereof unless the total daily work time is less than 3½ hours.
The California Supreme Court has interpreted the term "major fraction thereof" to mean any amount of time in excess of two hours—i.e., any fraction greater than one-half. Accordingly, employees are entitled to one 10-minute rest break for shifts from 3½ to six hours long, two 10-minute rest breaks for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, three 10-minute rest breaks for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.
If an employer fails to provide meal periods, it will be liable for up to one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday the meal period was not provided. If the employer also fails to provide the mandated rest periods, it will be liable for an additional hour of pay for each workday the rest periods are not provided. As this case demonstrates, even if the employer is a motor carrier, California meal and rest period laws are not preempted by the FAAAA.
Cathleen S. Yonahara, an editor of California Employment Law Letter, can be reached at Freeland Cooper & Foreman LLP in San Francisco, yonahara@freelandlaw.com.