Dimas Gutierrez Chacon v. P&S Select Foods Inc.

Background

Jose Dimas Gutierrez Chacon sued P & S Select Foods, P & S Select Meats Inc. doing business as P & S Select Foods, Ray Millan Sr., Gary Langsam, Anthony Millan, and Ray Millan Jr. He brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and New York labor laws on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.

Gutierrez alleged that he worked more than 40 hours per week without proper overtime pay, worked without meal breaks or rest periods, and did not receive accurate wage statements or records. He alleged that he was paid a daily salary of $80 from February 2011 through June 2014 and $100 from June 2014 through November 2016. The opinion states that the parties disputed when his employment began, whether he worked part time or full time, his hours, and his pay. They agreed that he worked as a helper or delivery assistant.

P & S purchases meat and other products from outside the state and distributes products to customers in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio. Gutierrez helped drivers make deliveries, loaded and unloaded trucks, made sure pallets were stacked safely, and assisted with safe truck operation. He did not decide where pallets were placed; Ray Millan Sr. provided written instructions.

Motion and Positions

The defendants moved for summary judgment on both federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims. They argued that Gutierrez was paid more than the federal minimum wage and that his overtime claim was barred by the motor-carrier exemption. They also asked the court to decline jurisdiction over the remaining New York claims if the federal claims were resolved.

Gutierrez consented to dismissal of his federal minimum-wage claim. He argued that the motor-carrier exemption did not apply to his overtime claim because he mainly made deliveries within New York and because any safety-related work was too minor. He also asked the court to retain jurisdiction over his New York claims.

Motor-Carrier Exemption

The Fair Labor Standards Act generally requires overtime pay at one and one-half times the regular rate for work exceeding 40 hours in a workweek. The motor-carrier exemption removes certain employees from that overtime requirement when the Transportation Secretary has authority to set their qualifications and maximum hours under the Motor Carrier Act.

The court explained that the exemption requires both an eligible motor carrier and an employee whose work directly affects the safe operation of motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The employee may be a driver, driver’s helper, loader, or mechanic. P & S’s status as a motor carrier was not disputed.

Interstate Work

The court rejected Gutierrez’s argument that the exemption could not apply because he usually traveled only within New York. The record showed that P & S received products from outside the state, delivered products in multiple states, assigned routes indiscriminately among drivers and helpers, expected employees to learn interstate routes, and could call any employee—including Gutierrez—to make an interstate delivery. Gutierrez also admitted that he made deliveries to New Jersey on two or three occasions.

The court held that interstate travel was a natural, integral, and inseparable part of Gutierrez’s duties. It found no factual dispute about the nature of his interstate duties and concluded that the exemption’s interstate requirement was met.

Safety-Related Duties

The court also held that Gutierrez’s work directly affected vehicle safety. Although he followed written loading instructions and did not decide where pallets should be placed, he regularly helped load the truck, made sure pallets were stacked safely, and assisted with safe truck operation. The court concluded that this was more than merely handling freight and that the safety-related activities were not too minor to support the exemption.

The court therefore found that Gutierrez was a “loader” covered by the motor-carrier exemption. It dismissed his federal overtime claim. Gutierrez had already consented to dismissal of the federal minimum-wage claim, and the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

New York Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state claims in the same federal case—over Gutierrez’s New York labor-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice to repleading them in state court.

Judge Edgardo Ramos’s order granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.