After a federal appeals court ruled that certain truckers should be paid for sleeper berth time, CRST has decided to settle the case rather than challenge the benchmark ruling.
Closing out the final chapter of an eight-year-old lawsuit, CRST and a class of truck driver trainees have reached a settlement worth $2.5 million. The settlement affects team drivers seeking pay for time spent in the sleeper berth.
In December, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s finding that time spent in a sleeper berth beyond eight hours is compensable for team drivers. CRST requested a rehearing, but that request was denied in February.
CRST’s sleeper berth settlement with truckers is the final nail in the coffin for a larger wage lawsuit that was filed in 2016. That lawsuit claimed that trainees for the mega-carrier were not paid for hours worked while in training.
In December 2020, CRST settled all claims except the sleeper berth claim for $12.5 million. CRST was not willing to accept the district court’s ruling allowing the sleeper berth claims to be included. The trucking company set aside $2.5 million for those claims while it appealed.
Training program and pay
The lawsuit filed in 2016 was centered on CRST’s training program and trainee pay during the program.
CRST’s training program is broken down into four phases:
- Driver training school (at least one week)
- Orientation (three-and-a-half days)
- Over-the-road training while paired with a lead driver (28 days)
- Continuation training (six months or more)
The lawsuit alleged that trainees were not paid during Phases 1 and 2. Rather, they accumulated debt through advances for tuition, lodging, drug tests and other fees. That debt was collected during the last phase at a 1.5% interest rate each month.
During the final two phases, CRST trainees were paid a per-mile rate for driving time but were not compensated for loading/unloading time or any other time working while the truck was not moving. Adjusting for that time, the lawsuit claimed trainees were paid less than minimum wage.
Lastly, the lawsuit sought wages for time spent in the sleeper berth. Specifically, trainees argued that time in the sleeper berth in excess of eight hours should be paid, since they were limited on what they could do and where they could go, essentially putting them on an on-call status to perform work-related duties.
CRST ended up settling all of the claims except for the sleeper berth claim, which it decided to challenge.
Sleeper berth time and pay
Although CRST was willing to concede most of the wage claims, the carrier decided to put up a fight with claims regarding sleeper berth time, which it lost.
The First Circuit panel used the predominant benefit test to determine whether CRST trainees should be paid for certain sleeper berth time. That test states that time is compensable work when it is spent predominantly for the employer’s benefit.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that since drivers are confined to the restrictive environment of the sleeper berth, such time predominantly benefits the employer.
Department of Labor regulations allow for a non-compensable sleeping period of up to eight hours. CRST trainees claimed that they should be paid after eight hours in the sleeper berth since they were limited in what they could do there. The appellate court agreed.
“The minimum height of the sleeper berth is a mere 24 inches as measured from the top of the mattress installed in the berth … meaning that drivers may struggle to stand or even sit up in bed in the sleeper berth,” the court panel stated. “The driver in the sleeper berth is also in constant proximity to the noise of the truck’s engine, further reducing drivers’ ability to sleep, relax or engage in leisure activities of their choice. In short, CRST’s argument that the drivers’ time is their own because they can use it as they wish is unpersuasive considering the drivers’ physical confinement in a restrictive space that is ill-equipped for many activities.”
With CRST losing its fight on sleeper berth claims, the $2.5 million it set aside more than three years ago will be awarded to plaintiffs. Settlement details still need to be submitted to the court, which will have to approve of the plan before funds are disbursed. LL
Credit: Source link
