Beverage company files motion to strike class allegations on failure to provide required breaks
Drivers previously hired by a beverage company recently argued that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)’s preemption order did not bar claims alleging violations of meal and rest break rules arising from conduct predating the decision.
The petitioners in the case of Garcia et al. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County were truck drivers formerly working for Haralambos Beverage Co. In January 2017, they brought a putative wage and hour class action against their past employer. They claimed that the company failed to provide meal and rest breaks under sections 226.7 and 512 of California’s Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Order No. 9-2001.
Read more: California court rules employer should report extra pay for missed breaks on wage statements
In December 2018, the FMCSA issued the preemption decision, which found that California’s meal and rest break rules were commercial motor vehicle safety laws and were preempted under section 31141 of title 49 of the United States Code. Thus, California could no longer enforce such rules relating to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles, who were subject to the FMCSA’s rules.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the December 2018 decision, held that it was not arbitrary, was not capricious, and was permissible as an interpretation of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984.
...Delhi Police has rejected allegations that Congress leader Deepender Hooda or any other politician has been placed under house arrest, describing the reports as misleading and baseless. The police...