Penske Petitions US Supreme Court to Overturn Calif. Meal-Break Law
This story appears in the Jan. 12 print edition of Transport Topics.
Penske Logistics last week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision upholding California’s meal-break law.
The law requires employers to provide a “duty-free” 30-minute meal break for employees who work more than five hours a day, plus a second “duty free” 30-minute meal break for employees who work more than 10 hours a day.
“Safe drivers are a top priority at Penske, and we already encourage our drivers to take their necessary safety rest and meal breaks while driving their routes and serving our customers’ delivery needs,” said Michael Duff, Penske’s general counsel. “This case is about federal law pre-empting state laws that relate to rates, routes and services offered by trucking companies. We’re asking the Supreme Court to resolve this issue for our company and the trucking industry.”
Penske, a division of Penske Truck Leasing Co., argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 provides that a state “may not enact or enforce a law . . . related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier with respect to transportation of property.”
“Few [if any] well-traveled routes in California permit a driver simply to pull a commercial vehicle to the side of the road for a meal or rest break at the mandated time, and scheduling routes that may accommodate the requisite breaks impacts the timing and number of deliveries that can be made,” Penske said in a Jan. 6 petition asking that the high court overturn the judgment of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Penske’s request for the review was made in the lead appellate case of more than a dozen federal class actions brought against motor carriers in California, alleging that the carriers have violated the state’s meal and rest break law.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Penske represent a certified class of 349 delivery truck drivers, all of whom are assigned to the Penske account for servicing Whirlpool products. The drivers work on routes within California delivering products that have traveled interstate and typically work more than 10 hours a day, according to court documents.
James Hill, an attorney with the San Diego law firm of Cohelan Khoury & Singer, who represents the lead driver in the case, did not respond to a request for comment.
Penske said that most lower courts have held that the California’s meal-break law is preempted for truckers by the 1994 federal law because it forces motor carriers to alter their routes and services to accommodate the breaks, and thereby impact carriers’ prices as well.
In July, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit rejected a lower court ruling that supported Penske’s position. They ruled that although California’s meal and break laws impact carriers’ services and control their routes, the impacts were “insufficient to trigger preemption because the laws do not ‘bind’ motor carriers to specific prices, routes, or services.”
In September, the appellate court also rejected a request by Penske that the case be reviewed by the full court.
California’s law also dictates that the first break must come before the end of the fifth hour of work, and the second, if applicable, before the employee’s 10th work hour.
Employers also must provide a paid rest break of 10 minutes every four hours or major fraction thereof.
