Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

88 F.4th 309

Juan Carlos MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;

Maurice Smith; Jean Paul Bricault, Jr., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC.; CRST International, Inc., Defendants, Appellants.

Juan Carlos Montoya, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;

Maurice Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;

Jean Paul Bricault, Jr., on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated; Jose Torres Rosado, on behalf of himself and

all others similarly situated; Austin Coddington, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated; Kevin Hamilton, on behalf of himself andall others similarly situated; Larry Wimbish, on behalf of himself andall others similarly situated; Rinel Tertilus, on behalf of himselfand all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. CRST Expedited, Inc.; CRST International, Inc., Defendants, Appellants.

No. 21-1125

No. 21-1482

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

December 12, 2023

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] James H. Hanson, with whom James A. Eckhart, E. Ashley Paynter, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., Wesley S. Chused, Daniel R. Sonneborn, Gregory P. Hansel, Elizabeth A. Olivier, Randall B. Weill, Jonathan George Mermin, and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, Chartered, LLP were on brief, for appellants.

Hillary Schwab, with whom Rachel Smit, Fair Work, P.C., Andrew S. Schmidt, Peter G. Mancuso, and Andrew Schmidt Law, PLLC were on brief, for appellees.

Richard Pianka and ATA Litigation Center on brief for American Trucking Associations, Inc., amicus curiae.

Seema Nanda, Jennifer S. Brand, Rachel Goldberg, Heather Maria Johnson, and Counsel for the Secretary of Labor on brief for the United States Secretary of Labor, amicus curiae.

Michaela C. May and Bennett & Belfort, P.C. on brief for the Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association and the National Employment Law Project, amici curiae.

Nicole Horberg Decter, Jasper Groner, and Segal Roitman, LLP on brief for the Massachusetts American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, amicus curiae.

Before Barron, Chief Judge, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

Motor carriers CRST Expedited and CRST International ("CRST") use a "team driving model" to transport goods across the country, whereby two drivers ride in a truck and alternate their time between driving and resting in the truck's sleeper berth. This collective action requires us to decide whether, as a matter of first impression, the time these long-haul truck drivers spend in the sleeper berth is "on-duty" time within the meaning of Department of Labor regulations, and, if so, whether CRST must compensate a driver who is on duty for 24 hours or more for time that driver spends in the sleeper berth in excess of eight hours within a full 24-hour period. Granting summary judgment for former CRST drivers Juan Carlos Montoya and others,¹ the district court determined that such time is compensable work. We affirm.

I.

A. Background

CRST is a motor carrier providing trucking services across North America that runs a driver training program for aspiring long-haul truck drivers. Montoya and the other members of the collective action were trainee long-haul truck drivers participating in CRST's program. The training program is comprised of four phases. The first two phases are a practicum enabling trainee drivers to earn a commercial driver's license and a companion classroom-based course with instruction on the practical use and application of these licenses.² During phase three, when trainee drivers sign an eight-to-ten-month employment contract and CRST begins to compensate them for their driving, new trainees are matched with a more experienced CRST driver to complete approximately four weeks of team driving. When the more experienced driver determines that the trainee driver is ready, the trainee advances to stage four, in which the trainee is matched with a co-driver to complete the additional seven to nine months of the contract term as a team driver.

CRST's team-based driver training program is uncommon. CRST is one of the few companies nationwide that hires inexperienced drivers and trains them in teams. The team driving model assigns to each truck two drivers who take turns driving the vehicle. These drivers structure their driving time in accordance with the "Hours of Service" regulations of the United States Department of Transportation ("DOT"). The regulations specify, in relevant part, that a driver may be "on duty" for a maximum of fourteen hours at a time. 49 C.F.R. § 395.3(a)(2). Within this fourteen-hour period, a driver may only drive for a total of eleven hours; the remaining three hours may be spent taking care of non-driving responsibilities, such as loading or unloading the vehicle. See id. § 395.3(a)(3). After fourteen hours of on-duty time, a driver must take at least ten consecutive hours of time "off duty" as defined by the DOT regulations, during which the driver cannot drive, load, or unload the vehicle, or have other responsibilities related to the truck and its equipment. See id. §§ 395.3(a)(1); 395.2. The dispute before us concerns this "off-duty" time only.

CRST's team-driving approach typically results in one person driving while the other driver is off duty (for purposes of the DOT regulations) in the sleeper berth of the truck.³ The drivers can then switch when the off-duty driver has completed the required ten-hour period. Drivers regularly take more than ten hours of sleeper berth time at a stretch, depending on how driving teams structure their driving time; indeed, some drivers have spent up to sixteen hours in the sleeper berth of the truck.⁴ CRST's approach allows the company to keep their trucks in near continuous motion, for multiple days, while complying with DOT regulations limiting the hours a driver can spend behind the wheel. The drivers "trade . . . on and off until they get from origin to destination," thereby allowing CRST to "get twice the utilization out of the truck and keep that cargo moving . . . twenty hours a day or more."

The sleeper berth of the truck is a driver's "living quarters" during these long stretches of time on the road. The space typically contains bunk beds, a sitting area, and perhaps a microwave or small refrigerator, but does not have a bathroom even though drivers are frequently there for ten or more hours at a time while the truck is in motion. Sleeper berths must, at a minimum, measure 24 inches in width, 75 inches in length, and 24 inches in height (which is measured from the highest point of the mattress on the top bunk). 49 C.F.R. § 393.76(a)(1). When in the sleeper berth, drivers are at liberty to pursue their own activities within the confines of the space and facilities provided to them. Drivers can make food, connect to the internet if internet connectivity is available, read, watch television or movies, and sleep.⁵ When the truck is not in motion -- for example, when the teammates swap over at a rest stop -- drivers are also able to leave the truck and attend to their needs before resuming driving. CRST explains that "[g]enerally [the drivers] eat and take care of personal hygiene during these transitions." Drivers are free to manage their time and schedules during a journey "[a]s long as they're still on their plan to deliver that load on time[.]" In emergency situations, the non-driving teammate may also be called upon to help with a maneuver or provide emergency assistance, even though he is "off duty" per the DOT's regulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 395.1(b)(2).

Driver compensation is covered by a different set of regulations, issued by the United States Department of Labor ("DOL"). The DOL regulations, which are discussed in detail below, provide that employers can exclude a sleeping period of no more than eight hours per day when calculating an employee's compensation. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.22.⁶ CRST calculates the pay owed to team drivers according to the total number of miles dispatched to the team for the shipment. Each member of the driving team is paid one half of the total number of miles attributed to the shipment at a rate of pay that corresponds with the driver's level of experience, with less experienced drivers receiving a lower rate of pay per mile. Thus, the hourly wage of the drivers can be calculated by dividing their received pay by the total number of hours worked during the pay period. CRST does not count time spent in the sleeper berth as hours worked and so does not include the sleeper berth hours in the calculation of the drivers' hourly wage. If the sleeper berth time is counted as hours worked, however, CRST's drivers receive an hourly wage that falls short of the minimum wage under the FLSA.⁷ See 29 U.S.C. § 206.

B. Procedural history

Montoya filed suit against CRST in January 2016 on behalf of himself and others who had participated in CRST's driver training program.⁸ Montoya claimed, in relevant part, that CRST's compensation policies violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, because CRST does not pay its drivers for hours spent in the sleeper berth that exceed the DOL's excludable eight-hour sleeping period, and thus does not meet the hourly minimum wage required by the FLSA. Montoya moved for summary judgment on this claim. Basing its decision largely on its interpretation of the DOL regulations, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that drivers' sleeper berth time exceeding eight hours is compensable under the FLSA. Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d 364, 393-95 (D. Mass. 2019). Thus, the court concluded, the additional sleeper berth time must be included when calculating whether CRST pays its drivers an hourly wage that meets the minimum wage requirements under the FLSA. See id. CRST...