Williams v. Central Transport Int'l, No. 15-2201 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit alleging that Central Transport violated the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), when it employed him as a "switcher" at its St. Louis terminal. The district court granted summary judgment to Central Transport. The FLSA exempts “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service” under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA), 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1). Based on the Supreme Court’s controlling precedents, the court concluded that, if an employee spends a substantial part of his time participating in or directing the actual loading of a motor vehicle common carrier’s trailers operating in interstate or foreign commerce, the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to regulate that employee’s hours of service and the MCA Exemption applies, regardless of the employee’s precise role in the loading process. Because the summary judgment record conclusively establishes that a substantial part of plaintiff's time during the relevant period was spent loading Central Transport trailers for interstate transportation, the MCA Exemption applies in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court did not err in classifying plaintiff as a loader and therefore exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act under the Motor Carrier Act exemption; based on Supreme Court precedents, if an employee spends a substantial part of his time participating in or directing the actual loading of a motor vehicle common carrier's trailers operating in interstate commerce, the Secretary of Labor has the authority to regulate the employee's hours of service and the MCA exemption applies, regardless of the employee's precise role in the loading process.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.