On March 11, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached a precedential holding in the case of McMaster v. Eastern Armored Services, Inc., affirming the District Court\u2019s opinion that the professional motor carrier exemption does not apply for motor carrier employees who, either in whole or in part, drive vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds.\u00a0 This case was brought by an employee for an armored courier company who spent roughly 51% of her time working on vehicles weighing over 10,000 pounds, and the remaining 49% of her time working on vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds.\u00a0 She filed a federal action under the Fair Labor Standards Act claiming that she was entitled to overtime wages for all the hours she worked over 40 in an individual workweek.\u00a0 The main issue in this case was whether or not Plaintiff\u2019s employer was exempt from paying her overtime under the Motor Carrier Act Exemption.<\/p>\n
The Motor Carrier Act Exemption provides that overtime pay is not required for any employee who falls under the scope of the Secretary of Transportation\u2019s regulatory authority.\u00a0 This would normally include all armored couriers such as the Plaintiff.\u00a0 However, in 2008, Congress enacted the Corrections Act of 2008, which provided that section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall still apply to \u201ccovered\u201d employees notwithstanding the overtime exemption created in the Motor Carrier Act.\u00a0 A \u201ccovered\u201d employee specifically includes any employee of a motor carrier whose job, in whole or in part, affects the safe operation of vehicles lighter than 10,000 pounds, with the exception of vehicles made to transport hazardous materials or large numbers of passengers.\u00a0 Therefore, \u201ccovered\u201d employees who fall under the scope of the Motor Carrier Act are still entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.<\/p>\n
The court here looked at McMaster\u2019s job duties and found that she fit the definition of a \u201ccovered\u201d employee.\u00a0 She drove a commercial vehicle, and approximately half of her trips were on vehicles lighter than 10,000 pounds.\u00a0 Further, her vehicle was not designed to transport large amounts of passengers or hazardous materials.\u00a0 The District Court and Third Circuit both noted the plain language of the Corrections Act of 2008 and previous legal precedent which was in accordance with their holding.\u00a0 The Defendants relied on policy statements made in 2009 by the Seventh Circuit, stating that dividing jurisdiction over the same drivers who would at times fall under the Motor Carrier Act when they drove larger trucks, and at other times under the Fair Labor Standards Act when they drove smaller trucks, would create confusion and be too burdensome on the employers.\u00a0 However, the court held that \u201cNeither history nor policy, however, can overcome an express change to the statutory scheme.\u201d\u00a0 Accordingly, the court found that McMaster, as well as all motor couriers who fall under the exception provided in the Corrections Act of 2008, are entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.<\/p>\n
The New York City Employment Lawyers at Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP are committed to the staunch advocacy of the working class.\u00a0 The firm has successfully represented many misclassified employees, resulting in the return of millions of dollars.\u00a0 If you feel that you have been misclassified or otherwise wrongfully denied overtime compensation, please contact us at (212) 300-0375 to schedule a free consultation to further discuss your rights.\u00a0 For more information, please visit our website at www.fslawfirm.com.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On March 11, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached a precedential holding in the case of McMaster v. Eastern Armored Services, Inc., affirming the District Court\u2019s opinion that the professional motor carrier exemption does not apply for motor carrier employees who, either in whole or in part, drive vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds.\u00a0 This case was brought by an employee for an armored courier company who spent roughly 51% of her time working …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[23,1,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action","category-employment-law","category-flsa-2"],"yoast_head":"\n