Klitzke v. Steiner Corp., No. 95-36084

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSCHWARZER
Citation110 F.3d 1465
Docket NumberNo. 95-36084
Decision Date11 April 1997
Parties133 Lab.Cas. P 33,514, 3 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1537, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2666, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4769 Marvin KLITZKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEINER CORPORATION, dba American Linen, Defendant-Appellee.

Page 1465

110 F.3d 1465
133 Lab.Cas. P 33,514, 3 Wage & Hour Cas.2d
(BNA) 1537,
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2666,
97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4769
Marvin KLITZKE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEINER CORPORATION, dba American Linen, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-36084.
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 3, 1997.
Decided April 11, 1997.

Page 1467

David C. Force, Eugene, Oregon, for plaintiff-appellant.

Regina Hauser, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, Oregon, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-06328(TMC).

Before: FLETCHER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, * Senior District Judge.

SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge:

In this appeal, we decide whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") exemption from overtime wage regulation, see 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), which applies to drivers whose qualifications and work hours are subject to regulation by the Secretary of Transportation, see 49 U.S.C. § 3102, applies to a motor private carrier whose primary business is not transportation and whose route is entirely intrastate but whose deliveries include items special ordered by the carrier for customers from out-of-state vendors.

Marvin Klitzke brought this action against the Steiner Corporation, dba American Linen, to recover overtime pay under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Klitzke is a route salesman for Steiner, which provides laundry and uniform rental and sale services in Eugene, Oregon. Klitzke sells Steiner's services and delivers linens and garments to Steiner's customers. Some garments sold by Steiner come out of its stock, and others are ordered for customers from out-of-state vendors. Those vendors ship to Steiner's warehouse via common carrier; once at the warehouse, the items are unloaded, labeled for the customers, loaded onto Steiner's trucks, and delivered by Steiner's route salesmen. Klitzke's route is entirely within Oregon, but over half of his deliveries are items received from out of state.

The district court granted Steiner's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Klitzke was exempt from the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1). We have jurisdiction of Klitzke's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); we review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Jones v. Union Pacific R.R., 968 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir.1992).

DISCUSSION

I. THE STATUTORY SCHEME

Klitzke's claim is for unpaid overtime during 1993 and 1994. Steiner does not dispute the overtime hours but contends that it was not subject to the requirements of the FLSA. The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime wages (1.5 times the regular hourly wage) to any employee who works more than forty hours in a week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Section 213(b)(1) provides, however, that employees whose qualifications and maximum hours of driving are subject to regulation by the Secretary of Transportation (the "Secretary") under the Motor Carrier Safety chapter of the Interstate Commerce Act are exempt from the overtime provisions of § 207(a):

(b) The provisions of section 207 of this title shall not apply with respect to

(1) any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 3102 of title 49; 2

Page 1468

29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)(1992) (emphasis added); Baird v. Wagoner Trans. Co., 425 F.2d 407, 410 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 829, 91 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed.2d 59 (1970); see Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649, 661-62, 67 S.Ct. 931, 938, 91 L.Ed. 1158 (1947); Reich v. American Driver Serv., Inc., 33 F.3d 1153, 1155 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that "a motor carrier cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of both the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Transportation"). The § 213(b)(1) exemption is construed narrowly, see Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392, 80 S.Ct. 453, 456, 4 L.Ed.2d 393 (1960), and the employer seeking the exemption has the burden of proving entitlement. Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz, 383 U.S. 190, 209, 86 S.Ct. 737, 748-49, 15 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Donovan v. Nekton, Inc., 703 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.1983).

For the statutory exemption under § 213(b)(1) to apply, the Secretary need not actually regulate the driver or his employer; it applies whenever the Secretary has the authority to regulate a driver's hours and safety. Southland Gas. Co. v. Bayley, 319 U.S. 44, 47-48, 63 S.Ct. 917, 919, 87 L.Ed. 1244 (1943); Martin v. Coyne Int'l Enter., Corp., 966 F.2d 61, 63 (2d Cir.1992). The Motor Carrier Safety chapter authorizes the Secretary to:

prescribe requirements for--

(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of ... a motor carrier; and

(2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of ... a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.

49 U.S.C. § 3102(B). SUBSECTION (2)3 applies to Klitzke because he is an employee of a motor private carrier, i.e., one who transports "property ... for sale, lease, rent, or bailment." 49 U.S.C. § 10102(13)(C). 4

II. KLITZKE'S CONTENTIONS TO AVOID THE EXEMPTION

Section 3102(b)(2) therefore removes Klitzke from coverage under the FLSA unless the exemption is limited either by some other statutory provision or by specific regulatory exclusions. See Jones v. Giles, 741 F.2d 245, 249 (9th Cir.1984). Klitzke claims that he falls within a number of such exceptions.

A. 49 U.S.C. § 10524 5

Klitzke contends that 49 U.S.C. § 10524 exempts him from regulation by the Secretary. That section, located in the subchapter defining the regulatory jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") over motor carriers, provides:

The Interstate Commerce Commission does not have jurisdiction under this subchapter [49 U.S.C. §§ 10521-10562] over the transportation of property by motor vehicle when--

(1) the property is transported by a person engaged in a business other than transportation; and

(2) the transportation is within the scope of, and furthers a primary business (other than transportation) of the person.

49 U.S.C. § 10524. The provision exempted carriers such as Steiner, who was not in the transportation business, from regulation by the ICC; it did not provide an exemption from regulation by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 practice notes
  • Badgett v. Rent-Way, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-188 Erie.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • September 30, 2004
    ...409, 412 (3d Cir.1992). See also Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distributors, Inc., 300 F.3d 217, 222 (2d Cir.2002); Klitzke v. Steiner Corp., 110 F.3d 1465, 1468 (9th The first requirement of the exemption is that the employer must be a "motor private carrier" within the meaning of the Motor Carr......
  • Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., Nos. B229982
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 2012
    ...Levinson v. Spector Motor Service (1947) 330 U.S. 649, 661–662, 678, 67 S.Ct. 931, 91 L.Ed. 1158;Klitzke v. Steiner Corp. (9th Cir.1997) 110 F.3d 1465, 1468.) The motor carrier exemption applies to individual employees only if (1) their employer is a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of t......
  • Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., Nos. B229982
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 2012
    ...Levinson v. Spector Motor Service (1947) 330 U.S. 649, 661–662, 678, 67 S.Ct. 931, 91 L.Ed. 1158;Klitzke v. Steiner Corp. (9th Cir.1997) 110 F.3d 1465, 1468.) The motor carrier exemption applies to individual employees only if (1) their employer is a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of t......
  • Minor v. Cent. Forest Prods., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-01631-CLS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • March 23, 2021
    ...the same statutory analysis. See Almy v. Kickert School Bus Line, Inc., 722 F.3d 1069, 1071-74 (7th Cir. 2013); Klitzke v. Steiner Corp., 110 F.3d 1465, 1468-69 (9th Cir. 1997). The bottom line on the contention of plaintiff's counsel that the "agriculturalPage 27 or horticultural commoditi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
55 cases
  • Badgett v. Rent-Way, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-188 Erie.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • September 30, 2004
    ...409, 412 (3d Cir.1992). See also Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distributors, Inc., 300 F.3d 217, 222 (2d Cir.2002); Klitzke v. Steiner Corp., 110 F.3d 1465, 1468 (9th The first requirement of the exemption is that the employer must be a "motor private carrier" within the meaning of the Motor Carr......
  • Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., Nos. B229982
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 2012
    ...Levinson v. Spector Motor Service (1947) 330 U.S. 649, 661–662, 678, 67 S.Ct. 931, 91 L.Ed. 1158;Klitzke v. Steiner Corp. (9th Cir.1997) 110 F.3d 1465, 1468.) The motor carrier exemption applies to individual employees only if (1) their employer is a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of t......
  • Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., Nos. B229982
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 2012
    ...Levinson v. Spector Motor Service (1947) 330 U.S. 649, 661–662, 678, 67 S.Ct. 931, 91 L.Ed. 1158;Klitzke v. Steiner Corp. (9th Cir.1997) 110 F.3d 1465, 1468.) The motor carrier exemption applies to individual employees only if (1) their employer is a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of t......
  • Minor v. Cent. Forest Prods., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-01631-CLS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • March 23, 2021
    ...the same statutory analysis. See Almy v. Kickert School Bus Line, Inc., 722 F.3d 1069, 1071-74 (7th Cir. 2013); Klitzke v. Steiner Corp., 110 F.3d 1465, 1468-69 (9th Cir. 1997). The bottom line on the contention of plaintiff's counsel that the "agriculturalPage 27 or horticultural commoditi......
  • 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