Search form

California Rules on Meal, Rest Breaks Preempted by Decision of Federal Trucking Regulator, Court Holds

By Fraser A. McAlpine and Adam L. Lounsbury
  • May 29, 2019

Ruling it lacked jurisdiction to review the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) decision barring enforcement of California’s meal and rest period rules with respect to interstate motor carriers, a federal district court in California has dismissed a driver’s meal and rest break claims based on California law. Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-00137-GW-KK (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2019).

FMCSA had ruled in 2018 that California’s meal and rest period rules do not apply to property-carrying commercial vehicle drivers transporting goods in interstate commerce. The court reasoned that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the issue, must rule on the issue before this court could deviate from the FMCSA’s ruling. It also noted that a number of petitions challenging the FMCSA’s ruling are pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Background

In a lengthy opinion released on December 28, 2018, the FMCSA held that California’s meal and rest period rules are unenforceable because the California rules:

  • Are more stringent than the federal hours of service rules;
  • Have no safety benefit beyond those already provided by the federal hours of service regulations;
  • Are incompatible with the federal hours of service regulations; and
  • Cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

See Dep’t of Transp., Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., No. FMCSA-2018-0304.

Accordingly, the agency held that the California meal and rest period rules are preempted by federal law (49 U.S.C. § 31141).

By statute, a FMCSA decision controls, unless a state, or person who is adversely affected by the FMCSA’s order, petitions the Ninth Circuit and persuades it that the FMCSA’s decision was wrong. To date, four such petitions have been filed challenging the FMCSA’s 2018 Order, but the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on the issue.

While waiting for the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., filed a motion for partial summary judgment based on the FMCSA’s ruling against the California meal and rest period claims asserted in a putative class action commenced by one of its former commercial truck drivers, Anthony Ayala.

The California District Court agreed with U.S. Xpress, holding that the FMCSA’s Order “bars enforcement” of the California meal and rest period claims. The court explained that “it is bound by the FMCSA Order and will apply the Order unless and until it is invalidated by the Ninth Circuit.” The court said that it “currently has no authority to enforce” the California meal and rest period rules. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the meal and rest period claims, and noted that the plaintiffs would be permitted to seek reconsideration if the FMCSA’s Order is invalidated by the Ninth Circuit.

Takeaways

The Ninth Circuit (and, perhaps, the U.S. Supreme Court) will have to decide whether the FMCSA’s preemption Order will govern. Until the Ninth Circuit rules, covered carriers operating in California are left to choose between compliance with California’s meal and rest break rules or assume the risk the Ninth Circuit may overturn the FMCSA’s decision. If a carrier changes its policies and practices in reliance on the FMCSA decision, but the Ninth Circuit later overturns the FMCSA decision, then the carrier could accrue liability for missed California meal and rest breaks, including premium pay.

Employers thinking of changing their policies or practices to reflect the unenforceability of California’s meal and rest period rules might consider waiting for the Ninth Circuit’s decision before doing so.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about meal and rest period policies and practices, as well as the legal and practical implications of making changes to those policies.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 7, 2019

New Jersey Wage Theft Law Increases Employer Liability for Wage and Hour Violations

August 7, 2019

New Jersey’s Wage Theft Act (WTA) significantly enhances employer penalties under the state’s wage and hour laws by adding liquidated damages and providing extra protections for employee retaliation claims. In addition, the WTA makes client-employers and labor contractors jointly and severally liable “for any violations of the provisions... Read More

August 5, 2019

Colorado Employer’s Vacation Policy that Included Forfeiture Provision Upheld

August 5, 2019

An employer’s vacation policy did not violate the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA), despite stating that employees forfeit earned vacation pay if they are discharged or quit without giving two weeks’ notice, the Colorado Court of Appeals has held. Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc., 2019 COA 98 (Colo. App. June 27, 2019). Background... Read More

July 24, 2019

Ninth Circuit to Ask California Supreme Court to Decide Retroactivity of ‘ABC’ Test, Withdraws Opinion

July 24, 2019

Whether California’s recently adopted “ABC” test, used in the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis in cases involving California’s wage orders, must be applied retroactively should be decided by the California Supreme Court, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided, withdrawing its controversial... Read More

Related Practices