Pasadena California Business & Commercial Law Blog

As discussed on this blog, late last year the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") determined that California's Meal and Rest Break rules are pre-empted by federal law, as applied to property-carrying commercial motor vehicle drivers covered by the FMCSA's Hours of Service regulations. Less than five months later, the implications of this are being seen in court.

On May 3, 2019, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment in the case of Ayala v. U.S. Xpress. In the case, the plaintiffs argued the U.S. Xpress had failed to comply with the meal and rest break requirements mandated under California law. The court dismissed this claim citing the FMCSA decision, stating it did not possess authority to review the decision.

As discussed on this blog, the retail industry, specifically brick and mortar stores, have found some perhaps unexpected good signs and wins as of late in their bid to maintain a model that looks to be displaced by online retailers.

However, recent events indicate brick and mortars may not be taking an upward swing, as the planned closings of retail stores in the US has already exceeded the number in all of 2018. The high number of closings appears to be a mix of profitable companies closing locations while struggling companies head into bankruptcy.

It is entirely common for employers to seek consumer reports and background checks on prospective and current employees. However, the law governing how the employer can go about this can be tricky, and if done wrong leads to a massive legal nightmare. The most recent example of this is Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, LLC.

When seeking these consumer reports, employers are required to provide disclosure and obtain consent from the prospective or current employee. The manner in which the disclosure and consent are handled is strictly proscribed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

In California, the ongoing litigation around the definition of an employee versus independent contractor and the rules for meal and rest breaks threaten to upend the trucking industry. While these issues are understandably garnering significant attention, there are others across the country that could also have a large impact. Currently, a case in Arkansas may leave the industry forced to undergo massive change.

In October 2018, a federal court in Arkansas took on a case against PAM Transport. The lawsuit centered on the time and activities drivers were required to be paid minimum wage for. Notably, this included time on the road sleeping that may normally be logged as off duty. PAM transport sought to have the case dismissed but their motion was denied.