Recently, a federal court in New York issued an opinion through which it concluded that several of Alpine Logistics’s delivery drivers are entitled to overtime compensation pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The decision is Hernandez v. Alpine Logistics, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96708 (D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2011). The Court’s opinion is significant because it represents the latest addition to what can be characterized as a hodgepodge of inconsistent federal opinions addressing the so-called "small vehicle exception" to the "motor carrier exemption" from overtime obligations under the FLSA (see The Employment and Labor Law Dispatcher blog for a basic explanation of the "motor carrier exemption" and "small vehicle exception").

Alpine Logistics was formed to benefit DHL—a well known courier service. Alpine Logistics’s fleet consisted of two vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds (GVW) and twenty-four vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds (GVW) or less. Under the terms of their employment, Alpine’s delivery drivers could be required to drive any of Alpine’s vehicles, regardless of weight. In Hernandez, the Court opined as follows:

The uncontroverted evidence reveals that although some of the plaintiffs [delivery drivers] occasionally drove larger trucks, the majority of driving hours were spent driving vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds. No drivers were involved in the transportation of passengers or hazardous materials, and therefore, the plaintiffs qualify as covered employees entitled to overtime compensation.

The Court cited the federal Department of Labor’s "Factsheet # 19" in support of its conclusion that delivery drivers were entitled to overtime compensation for any work week in which such drivers operated so-called "small vehicles"-those that weigh 10,000 pounds (GVW) or less-even if drivers spent the majority of their time operating large vehicles (those weighing more than 10,000 pounds GVW).

The Hernandez opinion is significant to transportation managers because it is inconsistent with several other federal court cases that have taken a different approach to the so-called "small vehicle exception" (and thus, creates unnecessary uncertainty and confusion concerning how the exception will be applied—especially for larger, national operations), and because it likely creates additional regulatory, record-keeping and financial considerations for motor carriers that operate mixed fleets with both "small" and "large" vehicles.

Legal Disclaimer

The Employment and Labor Law Dispatcher Blog is made available by Ruder Ware to provide a general understanding of some of the legal issues relating to the transportation industry. This site does not provide specific legal advice and you should not use the information contained on this site to address your specific situation without consulting with legal counsel that is well versed in employment and labor laws and regulations. By using the Employment and Labor Law Dispatcher Blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and Ruder Ware or any individual attorney. Postings on this site do not represent the views of our clients. This site may link to other information resources on the Internet. These sites are not endorsed or supported by Ruder Ware, and Ruder Ware does not vouch for the accuracy or reliability of any information provided therein.

Please do not send any confidential information to anyone at the firm before an attorney-client relationship is formally established. Any email communication submitted in response to this blog will not be considered confidential and will not be protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege.

For further information regarding the articles on this blog, contact Ruder Ware through our primary website, www.ruderware.com