Drivers Ask Appeals Court to Overturn Ruling Exempting Fleets From Calif. Law on Breaks

This story appears in the Dec. 3 print edition of Transport Topics.

A trio of California-based Penske drivers has asked a federal appeals court to overturn a lower federal court ruling that exempts motor carriers from complying with the state’s meal- and rest-break law.

Their 2008 lawsuit, which seeks $5 million, was dismissed in a summary judgment earlier this year by a California U.S. District Court judge who said federal preemption law exempts motor carriers in California from providing employees who work 10 hours or more with two half-hour meal breaks and two 10-minute rest breaks.

The federal preemption clause, a provision in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, does not allow states to impose laws or regulations that interfere with motor carriers’ “rates, routes or services.”

The three contract employees said that they — and as many as 270 “similarly situated” Penske Logistics and Penske Truck Leasing drivers and household-appliance installers — were denied the breaks and were entitled to as much as $5 million in overtime because they were not given breaks.

The drivers did not indicate the basis for their appeal but are expected to give details in a court filing later this month.

Penske has denied all of the allegations in the lawsuit. An attorney who is representing the company did not return a phone message by press time.

Trade organizations — including American Trucking Associations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Truck Renting and Leasing  Association — said in “friend of the court” filings last month in the appeal that the effect of the break requirements would be “immediate and significant” for truckers.

Application of California’s meal- and rest-break requirements to motor carrier operations would “open the door to a 50-state patchwork of similar regulations” that would “reduce the uniformity Congress envisioned to a shambles,” ATA said.

A ruling in the case by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not expected for several months, said Richard Pianka, ATA’s deputy general counsel.

Although motor carrier federal hours-of-service regulations currently do not require specific rest or meal breaks, a new “hours” rule — currently being challenged in federal court but set to go into effect in July — would require drivers to take a half-hour off-duty break sometime in the first eight hours of driving.

“Under current [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration] regulations, drivers are free to take rest breaks at any time as necessary for safe operation of their vehicles,” ATA said in its legal brief.

If the break law does require trucking to comply with the California law, the result could be costly, Pianka said.

“At a minimum, it would take basically an hour and some change out of every 14-hour duty period,” he added. “You’re talking about a reduction in productivity of quite a few percent.”

In court documents filed last month, TRALA said that because neighboring state laws addressing meal and rest breaks all differ, enforcement of the California law would be complicated, burdensome and inefficient for the trucking industry.

For example, Oregon employers must allow a 30-minute meal break for every six hours or more of work, Nevada employees must be permitted a 30-minute break for eight hours of work, and employees in Washington state must be given a half-hour meal break between the second and fifth hour of work, TRALA said.

In California, drivers would have to pull off the road at least four times within a 10-hour drive.

“These drivers would be required to locate a safe and lawful parking spot for a truck, driving to and from said location, decommissioning the truck and ensuring that it is safely parked,” TRALA said.

The U.S. Chamber said it filed a brief supporting the motor carrier exemption because many of its members are trucking companies.

The chamber said that an appeals court decision affirming the lower court ruling would allow motor carriers to “compete freely and more efficiently” and would ensure that individuals and businesses “continue to enjoy a full range of services at the best possible price.”