Federal Preemption of California’s Meal and Rest Laws for Truck Drivers Subject to Federal Regulations Applies Retroactively!

Qualifications

In California, Wage Purchase 9-2001 applies to “all persons utilized in the transportation field,” such as assets-carrying business truck drivers. (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 8, § 11090(1).) Beneath the buy, an worker functioning additional than five several hours a day is entitled to a “meal period of not much less than 30 minutes,” and an employee doing work much more than 10 several hours in a day is entitled to “a 2nd meal time period of not fewer than 30 minutes.” (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 8, § 11090(11)(A),(B).). The Wage Purchase entitles workforce to 10-moment relaxation breaks for each and every four hrs worked through the working day. (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 8, § 11090(12)(A).)

The Federal Motor Provider Safety Administration (FMCSA), an agency in just the Department of Transportation that imposes polices on specific professional motorists in interstate commerce, has different guidelines under their hours-of-service polices and calls for that other than for certain “short-haul” motorists, a property-carrying professional motor car or truck driver doing work additional than eight hrs will have to get at minimum just one 30-minute split throughout the first eight hrs, despite the fact that the driver has overall flexibility as to when the break takes place. (49 C.F.R. § 395.3(a)(3)(ii).)

Intercontinental Brotherhood of Teamsters, Regional 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Final decision

In 2018, the FMCSA resolved to preempt California’s food and relaxation crack guidelines with respect to drivers issue to the FMCSA’s hours-of-services restrictions. In Worldwide Brotherhood of Teamsters, Regional 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Ninth Circuit held that the agency’s final decision was a lawful exercise of its electric power beneath the Motor Carrier Security Act of 1984. (Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Regional 2785 v. Fed. Motor Carrier Protection Admin. (9th Cir. 2021) 986 F.3d 841, 846.) On the other hand, the problem remained as to whether or not the preemption decision barred plaintiffs from continuing with lawsuits just before the FMCSA decision was created.

Valiente v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC Choice

The court in Valiente v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC has answered that problem. In Valiente, Plaintiffs were being previous hourly truck motorists who filed a class motion lawsuit right before the company issued the preemption final decision, alleging violations of a variety of guidelines, together with California’s food and rest break guidelines. (Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022, No. 21-55456) 2022 U.S. Application. LEXIS 32424, at *5.) The district courtroom had held that in the wake of the FMCSA’s determination, it “ha[d] no authority to enforce the laws upon which Plaintiffs’ food and rest crack statements rest.” (Valiente, at *5-6.)

In answering irrespective of whether a change in regulation applies retroactively to a pending lawsuit, the 9th Circuit utilized the retroactivity examination established forth in Landgraf v. USI Film Solutions (1994) 511 U.S. 244, 263-264, 280, and located that since Congress intended for the FMCSA to have the electricity to halt enforcement of state guidelines and for the reason that the FMCSA meant for this particular preemption willpower to use to pending lawsuits, the FMCSA resolve prohibits existing enforcement of California’s meal and rest break guidelines irrespective of when the underlying carry out occurred. (Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, supra, 2022 U.S. Application. LEXIS 32424, at *7-8.)

Takeaway

What this indicates for California companies is that drivers matter to the FMCSA’s several hours-of-service polices are unable to proceed with lawsuits in search of to implement California’s meal and relaxation split regulations.