Fleet Management News & Business Info | Commercial Carrier Journal
Issue link: http://read.uberflip.com/i/526371
commercial carrier journal | june 2015 15 journal news T he U.S. Supreme Court last month declined to review whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts California's meal and rest break laws as applied to Penske Logistics drivers. The justices let stand a decision last year by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that state laws prescrib- ing meal and rest breaks for covered workers aren't related to transporta- tion prices, routes or services and aren't preempted by FAAAA. Supported by the American Trucking Associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Penske had said in its petition for review that the Ninth Circuit's misreading of FAAAA's preemption clause was "hopelessly out of step" with Supreme Court precedent and in conflict with other federal court rulings. But the Penske drivers said the Ninth Circuit "faithfully applied" Supreme Court precedent in ruling that "century-old" California labor laws mandating employee meal and rest breaks aren't sufficiently "related to" prices, routes or services of motor carriers to fall within federal preemp- tion as applied to short-haul drivers operating entirely within state lines. The Ninth Circuit, in reversing summary judgment for Penske, had revived a 2008 class action on behalf of 349 of the company's California delivery drivers who deliver and install residential appliances. Three drivers – plaintiffs Mickey Lee Dilts, Ray Rios and Donny Dushaj – had alleged the company violated state laws by automatically programming an unpaid 30-minute meal break into employees' schedules without ensuring they actually took such breaks and by discouraging driv- ers from taking the breaks. Penske argued the Ninth Circuit applied an "impermissibly demand- ing standard" by saying a generally applicable state law must "affirma- tively regulate" and "bind" carriers to specific prices, routes or services to trigger FAAAA preemption. The Ninth Circuit's decision has widespread ramifications for any motor carrier or airline operating within its jurisdiction, Penske said. "Each time a carrier seeks to con- duct operations in California, it risks exposure" to the state's meal and rest break laws, the company said. By denying federal preemption, the Ninth Circuit allows California to impose its public policies on motor carriers operating within the state, "thereby displacing competitive forces that would otherwise operate," Penske said. Without the Supreme Court's inter- vention to address and correct the Ninth Circuit's flawed preemption analysis, the problem "is not going away," Penske said. Richard Pianka, ATA vice presi- dent and deputy general counsel, has said that while the decision regards California law, the ruling could set a precedent for similar rules in other states. This likely would include drivers coming into California to work, regardless of where their car- rier is based, and challenges could be mounted in other states with similar rest break requirements, Pianka said. "I think we can expect the plain- tiff's bar to take this decision as an invitation to see how many lawsuits they can file and figure out what will stick," he said. "Anybody who's operating within California or any- where within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit in the West needs to take a look at this, and the industry in general needs to think about these issues." – Staff report Supreme Court declines review of Penske's California meal-rest break case Without the Supreme Court's intervention, the problem "is not going away," Penske said.