Not a Member? Get access to HR news and resources that you can trust.
Here is how HR can help prevent the missteps that could cost your company big in court.
Is your employee handbook ready for the changing world of work? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
60+ new SHRM Seminar dates in 10 U.S. cities and virtually.
Expand your influence and learn how to become an effective leader -- Join us in Phoenix, AZ, October 2-4, 2017.
In Godfrey v, Oakland Port Services Corp., which was decided on Oct. 28, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued a published decision holding that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) does not preempt California’s meal and rest period requirements.
Lavon Godfrey and Gary Gilbert were employed as truck drivers for Oakland Port Services Corp., which was doing business as AB Trucking. Godfrey and Gilbert initiated a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that “AB did not pay its drivers for all hours worked, misclassified some drivers as non-employee trainees and did not pay them at all, and failed to provide required meal and rest breaks.”
The plaintiffs sought certification of the class of drivers who performed work for AB out of its Oakland, California facility. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ class certification motion, and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The court awarded the class a total of $964,557.08, in addition to attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and class representative enhancements.
AB appealed arguing that federal law—the FAAAA—preempts application of California’s law on meal and rest break requirements to motor carriers. The FAAAA’s preemption clause restricts states from enacting or enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” AB claimed that California’s meal and rest break laws have a significant impact on prices, routes, and services.
In addition, AB argued that the court order granting class certification was unsupported by substantial evidence, that the court should have reserved individual determinations of damages for the claims administration process, and that AB’s drivers are expressly excluded from coverage under Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Order No. 9-2001. The California Court of Appeal rejected AB’s preemption argument and its other arguments and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
HR Education in a City Near You
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies