So, are meal / rest period laws "related to" a price, route or service? The district courts had split on the issue. The Ninth Circuit finally weighed in with its first opinion on the matter. The three-judge panel said:
Although we have in the past confronted close cases that have required us to struggle with the “related to” test, and refine our principles of FAAAA preemption, we do not think that this is one of them. In light of the FAAAA preemption principles outlined above, California’s meal and rest break laws plainly are not the sorts of laws “related to” prices, routes, or services that Congress intended to preempt. They do not set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell motor carriers what services they may or may not provide, either directly or indirectly. They are “broad law[s] applying to hundreds of different industries” with no other “forbidden connection with prices[, routes,] and services.”
The court rejected all of the employer's arguments as to how meal / rest period laws adversely affect pricing, routes and service. The court particularly emphasized that the California meal/ rest period laws do not apply to motor carriers exclusively, but to nearly all employers in the state.
So, truckers involved in the transportation of property covered by the FAAAA, the 9th Circuit has spoken regarding meal and rest periods. The employer may seek "en banc" review or petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. Stay tuned.
This case is Dilts v. Penske Logistics, Inc. and the opinion is here.
