Thompson v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | YOR CV-02-036 |
| Parties | DONALD A. THOMPSON, SR. and FREDERICK L. LOCKWOOD, III, Plaintiffs v. SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS, INC. and CLIFFORD W. PERHAM, INC., Defendants |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
The plaintiffs are truck drivers who were employed by Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. or a subsidiary and were paid by the mile. They are seeking overtime pay for weeks where they worked more than 40 hours. A motion for certification of class action has been filed but the defendants' response to that motion is not due until September 16, 2002.
The defendants have answered and raised a substantial number of defenses and have filed a motion for summary judgment based on one of the defenses that the defendants are "exempt from paying plaintiffs overtime pay under 26 M.R.S.A §664."
The related issues of minimum wages, length of the work day, and overtime pay have been debated in the United States for at least a century. The eight hour day was part of the platform of the Order of the Knights of Labor back in 1886 and was an issue raised by the Populists at the end of the nineteenth century. Minimum wage legislation was part of President Truman's Fair Deal. There has been an historic tension between the desire of labor for, in the words of Samuel Gompers, "more and more", and the desire of management to pay less and less. Our own legislature has been part of these debates and the attempts to balance conflicting interests.
The Legislature in 1959 stated, "It is the declared public policy of the State of Maine that workers employed in any occupation should receive wages sufficient to provide adequate maintenance and to protect their health, and to be fairly commensurate with the value of the services rendered." 26 M.R.S.A. §661.
The specific law that governs the current motion is found at 26 M.R.S.A. §664. That section begins with the statement that "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an employer may not employ any employee at a rate less than the rates required by this section." Subsection 1 governs minimum wages while subsection 2 relates to tip credits. Subsection 3 sets forth the provisions governing overtime pay. It starts with "An employer may not require an employee to work more than 40 hours in any one week unless 1 1/2 times the regular hourly rate is paid for all hours actually worked in excess of 40 hours in that week." The subsection goes on to state that
The list of exempt occupations is precise and shows those industries and businesses which have either been able to convince the legislature of their need for an exemption from the general laws favoring overtime pay or which have fallen from favor and lost their exemption.
Subsection 3, which was amended in 1997 to add that "Individuals employed, directly or indirectly, for or at an egg processing facility that has over 300,000 laying birds must be paid overtime in accordance with this subsection", is an example of a portion of an industry that lost its exemption. Subsection 3(A), governing automobile mechanics, parts clerks and salesmen shows the precision of the Legislature when it stated that the interpretation of these terms must be consistent with the interpretation of those terms under the federal overtime law.
The two named drivers in this case apparently sometimes distribute agricultural produce, meat and fish products or perishable foods. They apparently also took loads of other types of grocery items. The question presented in this motion would be easily answered if the drivers only distributed the named items. They would under the explicit provisions of the Maine law be exempted.
The plaintiffs have argued that the absence of a comma after "shipment" means that the exemption does not cover distribution, only the packing for distribution. That argument is unpersuasive as the distribution of the named items is as essential as its canning, processing, preserving freezing or drying and as it is not at all clear how packing for shipment would be different from packing for distribution. While it is not necessary to go to the legislative history, the materials cited by the defendants from earlier Legislatures is also supportive of the conclusion that distribution, not just packing for distribution, is part of the exemption.
What happens if in a given week a driver works more than 40 hours but the week is divided between loads of agricultural produce, meat and fish products or perishable foods and loads of other grocery items? This question has not been answered by the Law Court though some generalized guidance in how to answer the question has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial