Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc.

Decision Date24 April 2012
Docket NumberNo. DA 11–0556.,DA 11–0556.
Citation364 Mont. 534,277 P.3d 1198,2012 MT 89
PartiesOliver W. ARLINGTON, Petitioner and Appellant, v. MILLER'S TRUCKING, INC., a Montana corporation, Respondent and Appellee.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

For Appellant: Oliver W. Arlington (Self–Represented), Philipsburg, Montana.

For Appellee: Brian J. Smith, Megan L. Dishong, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missoula, Montana.

Justice PATRICIA O. COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

[364 Mont. 535]¶ 1 Oliver Arlington (Arlington) appeals from the Memorandum and Order on Petition for Leave to Present Additional Evidence and Petition for Judicial Review (Order), entered by the Third Judicial District Court of Granite County, Montana. The Order denied Arlington's petition to present additional evidence and affirmed the dismissal by the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (Department) of Arlington's claim against Miller's Trucking, Inc. (Miller's). Arlington seeks reversal of the Order, arguing that the final decision entered by the Department's Hearings Bureau (Bureau) did not follow the regulations pertaining to intrastate and interstate commerce, the Bureau Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were erroneous, and the District Court erroneously failed to allow the production of certain evidence.

¶ 2 We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ISSUES

¶ 3 Arlington raises four issues on appeal. We restate the issues as follows:

¶ 4 1. Did the District Court act within its discretion when it denied Arlington's Petition for Leave to Present Additional Evidence and upheld the evidentiary rulings made by the Hearing Officer?

¶ 5 2. Does substantial evidence support the Hearing Officer's decision, affirmed by the District Court, that Miller's Trucking, Inc., did not have an oral employment agreement with Arlington to pay him between $60,000 and $70,000 per year?

¶ 6 3. Did the Hearing Officer and District Court correctly determine that Arlington engaged in activities of a character directly affecting the safety of the operation of motor vehicles in interstate commerce and is thus exempt from overtime requirements?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 7 Arlington was employed by Miller's as a log truck driver and loader operator from September 2008 through August 2009. Miller's trucks were registered in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington, and Miller's had a permit to operate through the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). As part of his employment, Arlington operated and maintained one or more of Miller's trucks, performing routine maintenance and safety checks on the trucks. Arlington typically picked up logs at one location in Montana and drove on public and private roads within Montana to deliver the logs to another Montana location. Arlington usually picked up logs in the area near Roundup, Montana, and delivered the logs to a railroad yard in Laurel, Montana, where the logs were then transported by rail to the Smurfit–Stone plant in Frenchtown, Montana. At Smurfit–Stone, the bark was removed from the logs and shipped out of Montana. The logs were then turned into fiber paper, which was also shipped out of Montana.

¶ 8 Arlington's employment with Miller's stemmed from an oral agreement made between Arlington and Miller's owner, Tony Miller (Tony). For his work, Miller's paid Arlington 25% of the “load rate,” as calculated by Miller's. Arlington, however, asserted that according to their oral agreement, he should have been paid a salary in the form of annual wages. He contended he was hired for forty-hour work weeks, that he should have made between $60,000 and $70,000 in annual income, and that he should have received additional payment for any overtime worked. Tony denied giving Arlington an oral guarantee of earning between $60,000 and $70,000 per year for driving for Miller's. Miller's asserted it properly paid 25% of the load rate due Arlington and that Arlington received all the compensation to which he was entitled.

¶ 9 Pursuant to § 39–3–201 et seq., MCA, Arlington filed a wage claim with the Department on November 3, 2009, seeking $25,568.32 in regular wages and $46,101.81 in overtime wages from Miller's for work performed during the period of employment. His claim was dismissed on December 16, 2009, when the Department's Wage and Hour Unit determined that Miller's did not owe Arlington any additional pay. Arlington appealed to the Department's Bureau and requested a redetermination of the dismissal decision. Upon redetermination on March 15, 2010, his claim was again dismissed for lack of merit and lack of sufficient evidence to support the pay he alleged he was owed.

¶ 10 Arlington appealed the redetermination and dismissal by the Bureau. The Bureau issued a Scheduling Order in May 2010, allowing formal discovery and requiring it to be completed, with responses due and depositions taken, on or before June 11, 2010. Though dated June 10, 2010, Arlington filed a Motion for Production on June 14, 2010, requesting the production of [a] copy of all employment contracts for drivers employed by Miller['s] Trucking.” Miller's objected, arguing that Arlington's request was filed too late, denying Miller's adequate time to respond by the date required by the Scheduling Order. Because Arlington was representing himself, the Bureau accorded him extra latitude in meeting the deadlines, and issued a Rescheduling Order requiring the parties to serve written discovery requests by August 13, 2010. On August 13, Arlington requested the production of additional discovery from Miller's, including [a] list and copies of all, Job Orders for Truck Drivers [it] placed with the Montana Job Service, [and] any Media advertisement in connection with those Job Orders, from January 1, 2005 to September 30, 2009.” Miller's objected to this request on September 10, 2010, stating “it [wa]s wholly irrelevant to the claim at hand, unduly burdensome and overly broad.” Arlington responded, arguing that the job orders were relevant to his claim and allowable in discovery, and that Miller's was in default and violation of the rules of discovery.

¶ 11 On October 10, 2010, Arlington requested that the Bureau issue a subpoena to the Montana Job Service for all the truck driver job orders from Miller's, for the period between January 1, 2005, and August 13, 2010. Arlington did not file a motion for an order compelling discovery, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 37(a) and Admin. R.M. 24.2.105(1) (1978). The Bureau never responded to his subpoena request.

[364 Mont. 538]¶ 12 The Hearing Officer held an administrative contested case hearing on November 18, 2010, at which Arlington represented himself and Miller's appeared by counsel. Both parties presented evidence and argument, and both Tony and Arlington testified as to the terms of the oral agreement. The Hearing Officer found Arlington's testimony was not corroborated or credible.

¶ 13 The Hearing Officer entered his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Notice of Judicial Review Rights (Hearing Officer's Order) on March 9, 2011, dismissing Arlington's claim. The Hearing Officer determined that Arlington worked for Miller's under an oral agreement never reduced to writing. The Hearing Officer also found that there was “no substantial and credible evidence that Miller's either made any binding representations about the monthly or annual wage that Arlington could reasonably expect to earn, or guaranteed any minimum monthly or annual wage that Arlington would earn.” The Hearing Officer found that Arlington did not prove that Miller's entered into an agreement to pay him between $60,000 and $70,000. On a separate question, the Hearing Officer found that Arlington was not entitled to overtime wages because his employment was within the overtime exemption of the Motor Carrier Act (Act) by virtue of his involvement with interstate commerce.

¶ 14 Arlington filed petitions with the District Court on April 6, 2011, seeking judicial review and leave to present additional evidence. He argued that the Hearing Officer's Order should be reversed and that additional evidence should be received into the record for consideration by the Hearing Officer. He sought to include in the record two job listings for truck drivers that Miller's issued and posted through the Montana Job Service, as he believed they substantiated his wage claim. Although it is unclear when Arlington actually obtained copies of the job listings from an outside source, the record clearly shows that the Hearing Officer did not admit the job listings into evidence.

¶ 15 On August 24, 2011, the District Court affirmed the Hearing Officer's decision, dismissing Arlington's claim against Miller's and denying Arlington's request to present additional evidence.

¶ 16 Arlington appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 17 “When [a] district court's decision is based on review of an agency action, [the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) ] governs our review,” and our scope of review is limited. Citizens Awareness Network v. Mont. Bd. of Envtl. Rev., 2010 MT 10, ¶ 13, 355 Mont. 60, 227 P.3d 583;N. Fork Preservation Assn. v. Dept. of St. Lands, 238 Mont. 451, 465, 778 P.2d 862, 871 (1989). We apply the same standards as the district court when we review a district court order affirming or reversing an agency decision. Ostergren v. Dept. of Revenue, 2004 MT 30, ¶ 11, 319 Mont. 405, 85 P.3d 738. “In a contested case, a district court reviews an administrative decision to determine whether the findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the agency correctly determined the law,” and we will review the district court decision for the same. Ray v. Mont. Tech of the U. of Mont., 2007 MT 21, ¶ 24, 335 Mont. 367, 152 P.3d 122;Cenex Pipeline LLC v. Fly Creek Angus, Inc., 1998 MT 334, ¶ 22, 292 Mont. 300, 971 P.2d 781.

¶ 18 “A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc., DA 11-0556
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 24 de abril de 2012
    ...2012 MT 89OLIVER W. ARLINGTON, Petitioner and Appellant,v.MILLER'S TRUCKING, INC., a Montana corporation, Respondent and Appellee.DA 11-0556SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANASubmitted on Briefs: February 1, 2012Decided: April 24, 2012APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial Dist......
  • Norval Elec. Coop. v. Lawson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 20 de dezembro de 2022
    ...or reversal of an agency decision, we apply the same standard of review as the district court. Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc., 2012 MT 89, ¶ 17, 364 Mont. 534, 277 P.3d 1198. District courts are bound by the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) when reviewing agency decisions. ......
  • Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 3 de março de 2015
    ...have been permitted to obtain and introduce into evidence job advertisements issued by Miller's. Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc., 2012 MT 89, ¶ 25, 364 Mont. 534, 277 P.3d 1198 (Arlington I ). We further held that Arlington was not an exempt employee under the FLSA. Arlington I, ¶ 45. ......
  • Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 3 de março de 2015
    ...have been permitted to obtain and introduce into evidence job advertisements issued by Miller's. Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc., 2012 MT 89, ¶ 25, 364 Mont. 534, 277 P.3d 1198 ( Arlington I ). We further held that Arlington was not an exempt employee under the FLSA. Arlington I, ¶ 45.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT