Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

BeavEx is a same-day delivery service that uses 104 couriers to carry out its customers’ orders throughout Illinois. By classifying its couriers as independent contractors instead of employees, Beav-Ex attempted to avoid the requirements of state and federal employment laws, including the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS 115, which prohibits an employer from taking unauthorized deductions from its employees’ wages. Plaintiffs, and the putative class, were or are couriers who allege that they should have been classified as employees of BeavEx for purposes of the IWPCA, and that any deductions taken from their wages were illegal. The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. 14501(c)(1) expressly preempts any state law that is “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier.” The district court held that the FAAAA does not preempt the IWPCA and denied BeavEx’s motion for summary judgment. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class but granted their motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Plaintiffs are employees under the IWPCA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of BeavEx’s motion for summary judgment, vacated the denial of class certification, and remanded for further proceeding View "Costello v. BeavEx, Inc." on Justia Law

Mechanics, members of the Union and employees of Metro, filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (UMTA), 49 U.S.C. 5333, that Metro must establish a framework through which they could form a bargaining unit separate from the Union. The Union intervened and the district court granted the Union's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that section 13(c) does not entitle mechanics to the relief they seek because Congress did not intend to provide a federal forum for disputes between unions and transit authorities; the language and structure of section 13(c) does not suggest that Congress intended to create a federal private cause of action; and the consistent theme in Section 13(c)’s legislative history was that “Congress intended that labor relations between transit workers and local governments would be controlled by state law[.]" Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stenger v. Bi-State Dev. Agency" on Justia Law

KCI’s Transit Division provides bus and shuttle services on 32 set routes, four of which cross state lines. From 2009 through 2012, its revenue generated by interstate routes fluctuated between 1.0% and 9.7%. KCI trains drivers on multiple interstate and intrastate routes. KCI may assign a driver to any route on which he has been trained, including interstate routes, and may discipline a driver who refuses to drive an assigned route. As a “common carrier by motor vehicle” authorized to engage in interstate commerce, KCI is subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations and possesses a U.S. Department of Transportation registration number. KCI provides each driver with a “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations Pocketbook” detailing the driver’s responsibilities under DOT regulations. Plaintiffs were drivers who, during the relevant period, worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving overtime pay; 1.3% of their trips required them to cross state lines. Resch filed a purported collective action to recover unpaid overtime. The district court conditionally certified a class. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of KCI, holding that Plaintiffs are ineligible for overtime under the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1), and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. View "Resch v. Krapf's Coaches Inc" on Justia Law

BLET, a labor union under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151, represents locomotive engineers and trainmen, including conductors and brakemen, who work for the railroad, a regional common carrier with 840 miles of track in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland. In 2003, the railroad served notice, seeking to eliminate the “crew consist” of the Trainmen Agreement, so that it would not have to assign a union conductor to each train. BLET refused this proposed change. After several years of failed efforts at negotiation, the railroad began substituting management employees for contract conductors. BLET went on strike. The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring BLET from taking economic action against the railroad, finding that the parties were engaged in a minor dispute. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for dismissal of the railroad’s complaint, finding that the dispute is major, not minor. Under the status quo requirement of the Act, the railroad was not free to implement at will the very change it sought to accomplish when it served the Section 6 notice on BLET. It did so anyway and prematurely resorted to self-help before the conclusion of the major dispute process. View "Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs" on Justia Law

McMaster worked for Eastern, an armored courier company, as a driver or guard. Her assignment changed daily. McMaster spent 51% of her total days working on vehicles rated heavier than 10,000 pounds, and 49% of her total days working on lighter vehicles. She was paid by the hour and frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. She was not paid overtime. After McMaster left Eastern, she filed a purported class action claiming that the Fair Labor Standards Act required Eastern to pay overtime wages , 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The dispute centered on the Act’s the Motor Carrier Act Exemption. According to McMaster, she fell within an exception to the exemption, enacted prior to her employment. The Corrections Act waives the exemption for motor carrier employees who, in whole or in part, drive vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds and states: “Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act . . . appl[ies] to a covered employee notwithstanding section 13(b)(1) of that Act.” The district court held that McMaster was eligible for overtime for all hours she worked over 40 in a workweek. The Third Circuit affirmed. McMaster met the criteria of a “covered employee” and was entitled to overtime. View "McMaster v. Eastern Armored Servs., Inc" on Justia Law

Kruse, a Norfok train conductor, was injured on the job in March, reported his injury, and took leave until August. Shortly after he returned to work, Kruse was suspended for 30 days without pay for exceeding speed limits. Kruse’s union appealed under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 153. Both the on-property investigation and the arbitration board concluded that Norfolk “was justified,” but reduced the suspension. While his grievance-related appeal was pending before the arbitration board, Kruse filed a Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) complaint with the Department of Labor, claiming that his suspension was in retaliation for reporting his prior work-related injury. The ALJ ruled in favor of Kruse, denying Norfolk’s motion to dismiss based on FRSA, which prohibits a railroad carrier from retaliating against employees who report work-related injuries and potential safety violations, and provides that “[a]n employee may not seek protection under both this section and another provision of law for the same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier,” 49 U.S.C. 20109(f). The Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board affirmed and the Sixth Circuit denied review, reasoning that prior arbitration of a grievance under the RLA did not trigger the FRSA’s election-of-remedies provision. View "Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Perez" on Justia Law

Bala, a unionized signal repairman, has worked for PATH since 1990. Signal repairmen of Bala’s seniority get 12.5 paid holidays and 23 paid vacation days per year. Separate from holidays and vacations, Bala took more than 600 sick and personal days through 2008. In 2007, Bala took 82 sick days, compared to the 17 days of sick leave per year typically taken by PATH’s unionized signalmen. PATH warned that if his attendance did not improve formal disciplinary action might be taken. On June 22, 2008, Bala experienced back pain while at home. The next day, Bala’s physician ordered him off work through July. PATH notified Bala of a hearing regarding his absenteeism. After that hearing, PATH suspended Bala for up to six days, without pay. Bala filed a complaint with the U.S. Secretary of Labor, alleging that the suspension was retaliation for taking statutorily protected sick leave, in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20101. The Review Board held that PATH violated the Act, which prohibits railroads from disciplining employees “for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician.” The Third Circuit reversed, holding that only physicians’ orders which stem from on-duty injuries are covered. View "Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Co v. Sec'y, Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

After Continental and United Air Lines merged, they needed to produce unified seniority and longevity rosters for pilots. The Air Line Pilots Association represents all of the pilots. In 2012 the new United and the Union reached an agreement that sets pilot pay based on: rank (captain vs. first officer), type of aircraft flown, and longevity, defined as all time since the date a pilot was hired, including time spent on furlough. Pre-merger, pilots on furlough accrued seniority but not longevity. Plaintiffs challenged ancillary Agreement 25, under which pilots in active service longer than four years and seven months would receive no credit for furlough time; pilots who had four years and six months of service could claim only one month of furlough; and so on. Plaintiffs claimed that the provision slots 475 former United pilots into the table behind former Continental pilots who were hired before May 6, 2008, in violation of the main agreement, and accused the Union of inadequate representation (DFR claim). Defendants replied that the main agreement governs the future, after Agreement 25 determines the pilots’ starting positions. The district judge dismissed United as a party because disputes about the meaning of an airline industry collective bargaining agreement are within the exclusive authority of an adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act, leaving plaintiffs unable to establish both that United violated the contract and that the union did not represent workers fairly. They then argued that the Union negotiated a bad contract. The district court concluded that Agreement 25 is not irrational. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that, with pilots on different sides of the issue, a compromise that favored some over others was inevitable. View "Cunningham v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BNSF, alleging that BNSF violated the anti-retaliation mandate in the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109(a), when BNSF terminated him. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim. The court concluded that plaintiff's FRSA claim failed because he failed to present a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination where plaintiff's protected activity was completely unrelated to the fouling-the-tracks incident that led to his discharge. BNSF submitted clear and convincing evidence that it would have discharged plaintiff whether or not he had made unrelated reports that were activity protected by the FRSA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kuduk v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The “B Prong” of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148B(a)(2), requires that workers perform a service outside the usual course of the employer’s business to be classified as independent contractors. The Massachusetts Delivery Association (MDA) filed an action for a declaration that the B Prong is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Act (FAAAA), and for an injunction barring the Attorney General from enforcing section 148B(a)(2) against the MDA’s members. The FAAAA preempts state laws that “relate to” the prices, routes, or services of a motor carrier “with respect to the transportation of property.” The district court held that the FAAAA does not preempt section 148B(a)(2). The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court incorrectly interpreted the preemption test under the FAAAA and incorrectly applied the test to section 148B(a)(2). Remanded. View "Mass. Delivery Ass’n v. Coakley" on Justia Law