John Watkins v. Ameripride Services, Dba Ameripride Uniform Services

Opinion by Judge RAWLINSON. Concurrence by Judge WILLIAM A. FLETCHER.

Plaintiff-Appellant John Watkins (Watkins) unfortunately became disabled during his otherwise productive stint as an employee with Defendant-Appellee Ameri-pride Services (Ameripride). Ameripride tried to salvage Watkins’ career by placing him on special assignment and on a leave of absence. However, Watkins was unable to recover sufficiently to resume his former position. Watkins sued Ameripride under the California Labor Code for improperly classifying him as exempt from overtime pay and thus failing to pay him for overtime work, and under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for failure to accommodate his disability. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ameri-pride, finding that Watkins was exempt from California’s overtime pay requirements under the motor carrier exemption to the California Labor Code. At the conclusion of a bench trial on the remaining claims, the district court entered judgment in favor of Ameripride, finding that Ameri-pride reasonably accommodated Watkins’ disability. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Watkins was…

concurring:

I concur fully in the court’s opinion. I write separately to point out that a potentially relevant legal issue was not argued and is not decided in this case.

When the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) was passed in 1938, it established federal standards for wages and hours. Section 7 of the FLSA limited the number of hours that could be worked in a given week, and provided for wages at one and one-half the regular rate for hours worked in excess of the limit. See 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). However, Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA exempted from its overtime requirements employees within the regulatory power of the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”) under the federal Motor Carrier Act. See id. § 213(b)(1); see also Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422, 423-25 , 68 S.Ct. 131 , 92 L.Ed. 44 (1947); Levinson v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649, 660 , 67 S.Ct. 931 , 91 L.Ed. 1158 (1947). After the dissolution of the ICC in 1995, the relevant regulatory authority became the Secretary of Transportation rather than the ICC, but the substance of the exemption from the FLSA remained. See Klitzke v. Steiner Corp., 110 F.3d 1465 , 1468 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1997). Section 13(b)(1) of the…

375 F.3d 821 John WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, dba Ameripride Uniform Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 02-56082. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 7, 2003. Filed July 6, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Lloyd C. Ownbey, Jr., Pasadena, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant. C. Craig Woo and Scott C. Lacunza, Jackson Lewis LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-01038-DOC. Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge RAWLINSON. Concurrence by Judge WILLIAM A. FLETCHER. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Plaintiff-Appellant John Watkins (Watkins) unfortunately became disabled during his otherwise productive stint as an employee with Defendant-Appellee Ameripride Services (Ameripride). Ameripride tried to salvage Watkins' career by placing him on special assignment and on a leave of absence. However, Watkins was unable to recover sufficiently to resume his former position. Watkins sued Ameripride under the California Labor Code for improperly…