Gomez v. JP Trucking, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 May 2022
• Docket Number: 20SC950
• Citation: 2022 CO 21
• Parties: Leonel Gomez, Francisco Gonzalez, Ebarardo Sanchez, and Nathan Abbott, Petitioners v. JP Trucking, Inc. Respondent
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

2022 CO 21

Leonel Gomez, Francisco Gonzalez, Ebarardo Sanchez, and Nathan Abbott, Petitioners v. JP Trucking, Inc. Respondent

No. 20SC950

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc

May 16, 2022

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 17CA2384

Attorneys for Petitioners: Riley Law LLC Kelli Riley

Towards Justice David Seligman Brianne Power

The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC Brian Gonzales

Attorneys for Respondent: Hall & Evans, L.L.C. Paul T. Yarbrough Meredith L. McDonald Malcolm S. Mead Jared R. Ellis

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Motor Carriers Association: Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP Frederick R. Yarger Natalie West

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association: Law Office of David Lichtenstein, LLC David Lichtenstein, HKM Employment Attorneys, LLC Adam M. Harrison

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae National Armored Car Association: Littler Mendelson, P.C. Jennifer S. Harpole Bradley J. Crowell James A. Paretti

CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, JUSTICE HOOD JUSTICE GABRIEL, JUSTICE HART, and JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER joined.

OPINION

SAMOUR, JUSTICE

¶1 During the relevant timeframe, the four truckers who initiated this action ("the truck drivers") regularly drove more than forty hours per week for their employer, JP Trucking, Inc., a Colorado transport company. The question they present to us is whether they're entitled to overtime pay for hours exceeding forty hours per week or twelve hours per day. The answer depends on the meaning of a state regulation that exempts "interstate drivers" from overtime compensation.

¶2 The truck drivers and JP Trucking both urge us to declare that the term "interstate drivers" is unambiguous. Yet they offer conflicting interpretations of it. The truck drivers argue that the term refers to drivers whose work predominantly takes them across state lines. JP Trucking, in contrast, maintains that "interstate drivers" are drivers who are involved in the transportation of goods in interstate commerce, even if their work never takes them across state lines.

¶3 A division of the court of appeals determined that "interstate drivers" was unambiguous. See Gomez v. JP Trucking, Inc., 2020 COA 153, ¶ 22, 490 P.3d 977, 983. It then sided with JP Trucking's understanding of the term. We see it differently and, accordingly, reverse. But we're not in complete agreement with the truck drivers either.

¶4 We conclude that "interstate drivers" is an ambiguous term. And, consistent with the decision by a different division of the court of appeals in Brunson v. Colorado Cab Co., 2018 COA 17, ¶ 45, 433 P.3d 93, 100, we hold that "interstate drivers" refers to drivers whose work takes them across state lines, regardless of how often. Hence, the state exemption from overtime compensation is triggered the first time a driver crosses state lines during a work trip.

¶5 Here, it is undisputed that two of the truck drivers, Francisco Gonzalez and Nathan Abbott, each crossed state lines on one occasion while transporting goods for JP Trucking. Upon doing so, they became "interstate drivers" and thus ineligible for overtime pay during the rest of their employment at JP Trucking. The other two truck drivers, Leonel Gomez and Ebarardo Sanchez, never crossed state lines while transporting goods for JP Trucking and, therefore, did not lose their entitlement to overtime pay. In light of these conclusions, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and to allow the division to consider JP Trucking's remaining contentions regarding the calculation of damages.

¶6 We note that our holding is necessarily limited by a recently enacted state regulation, which provides that commercial drivers now come within the ambit of the overtime exemption if they are subject to the exemption's federal counterpart (i.e., if they are engaged in the transportation of goods in interstate commerce) and are paid a certain wage. Today's opinion doesn't affect any cases governed by the new regulation.

I. The Alphabet Soup Must Be Served First

¶7 Before summarizing the facts and procedural history, we briefly outline the different federal and state statutes that are implicated, as well as certain regulatory orders promulgated under those legislative pronouncements. Because each act, regulation, and enacting body has its own abbreviation-forming a hodgepodge of acronyms-and because it isn't easy to digest this alphabet soup, we hope that providing some background will be helpful.

¶8 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, sets federal minimum wage and overtime requirements for certain employers nationwide. Of relevance here, section 207 of the FLSA, which applies to many categories of employers, provides that "no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce . . . for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives [overtime] compensation." Id. at § 207(a)(1) (specifying that such an employee must be paid for any employment exceeding forty hours during a workweek "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed").

¶9 But the FLSA contains an extensive section of "Exemptions," which discusses circumstances when some provisions of the FLSA "shall not apply." Id. at § 213(b)(1). Section 213(b)(1), known as the Motor Carrier Act ("MCA") exemption, states that section 207 (the aforementioned section addressing maximum hours and overtime compensation) shall not apply to "any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation [("Secretary")] has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service." Id. at § 213(b)(1).

¶10 The Secretary's power extends only over employees who (1) are employed by carriers whose transportation of passengers or property by motor vehicle is subject to the Secretary's jurisdiction under the MCA and (2) engage in activities that affect the safe operation of motor vehicles in the transportation of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce. 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(a) (2022). "The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the Agency determination" that such activities "are included in the kinds of work which has been defined as the work of drivers, driver's helpers, loaders, and mechanics" employed by the specified motor carriers. Id. at § 782.2(b)(1). Thus, distilled to its elements, and as relevant here, the MCA exemption covers: (1) drivers, driver's helpers, loaders, and mechanics; (2) employed by motor carriers; and (3) involved in the movement of goods in interstate commerce. Id. at § 782.2(b)(2).^[1] ¶11 While the FLSA applies nationally, the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), §§ 8-4-101 to -124, C.R.S. (2021), and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), §§ 8-6-101 to -120, C.R.S. (2021), contain provisions regarding minimum wage and overtime pay for employees who work in certain industries in Colorado. The CWCA and the CMWA are implemented through Colorado Minimum Wage Orders ("Wage Orders"), which are regularly promulgated by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ("Department"). Starting in 2020, the Department renamed its Wage Orders; they are now titled Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards ("COMPS") Orders.

¶12 Wage Order 31 was in effect during the timeframe in question (i.e., throughout 2015). See Dep't of Lab. & Emp., Wage Order 31, 7 Colo. Code Regs. 1103-1 (eff. between Dec. 30, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2015) [https://perma.cc/4DFR-69JU]. Like other Wage Orders, Wage Order 31 applies only to work performed "within the boundaries of the state of Colorado." Id. at § 1. Though Wage Orders are revised annually to reflect the current Colorado minimum wage, the germane language in Wage Order 31 appears in Wage Orders spanning more than a decade. See, e.g., Dep't of Lab. & Emp., Wage Order 24, 7 Colo. Code Regs. 1103-1:1 (eff. between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2008) [https://perma.cc/6A8F-ZSPV].

¶13 Wage Order 31 requires some Colorado employers to pay overtime at a rate of "time and one-half" the employee's normal rate of pay. Wage Order 31 § 4. But Wage Order 31 also contains an exemptions section that excludes many employees from all of Wage Order 31's provisions:

5. Exemptions from the Wage Order:

The following employees or occupations, as defined below, are exempt from all provisions of Minimum Wage Order No. 31: administrative, executive/supervisor, professional, outside sales employees, and elected officials and members of their staff. Other exemptions are: companions, casual babysitters, and domestic employees employed by households or family members to perform duties in private residences, property managers, interstate drivers, driver helpers, loaders or mechanics of motor carriers, taxi cab drivers, and bona fide volunteers. Also exempt are: students employed by sororities, fraternities, college clubs, or dormitories, and students employed in a work experience study program and employees working in laundries of charitable institutions which pay no wages to workers and inmates, or patient workers who work in institutional laundries.

Id. at § 5 (emphasis added).^[2] ¶14 Although Wage Order 31 lists "interstate drivers," it does not define the term. However, the Department published an advisory bulletin defining "interstate drivers" as "drivers whose work takes them across state lines." Colo. Div. of Lab., Advisory Bulletins and Resource Guide § 22(I) (Mar. 31, 2012) ("Advisory Bulletin") [https://perma.cc/7PLA-ZTRD].

II. Facts and Procedural History

¶15 The truck drivers are former employees of JP Trucking. As JP Trucking's employees, they delivered construction equipment to jobsites within Colorado, though Gonzalez and Abbott each...