# Supreme Court considers trucking case that could rattle the economy.



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Truckers got their day in court on Wednesday, as a not-quite-complete slate of Supreme Court justices weighed arguments in a closely watched case that could saddle the industry with higher costs that could hit consumers and ripple throughout the economy.

In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340, the justices heard the case of Dominic Oliveira, a long-haul truck driver who filed a suit against the transportation outfit New Prime three years ago, alleging that the company failed to pay him minimum wage and at times even charged him for working.

The case pits business interests against labor groups in the first major case of the term that could have consequences for hundreds of thousands of American workers and potentially millions of consumers. It could shape an industry that generates more than half a trillion dollars in annual revenue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/sup...cking-case-that-could-rattle-the-economy.html


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

This is a case to watch for Uber/Lyft/Gig economy drivers.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

In this case, Oliveira has argued that he was misclassified, because his work was "substantially identical to the job responsibilities of employee drivers." New Prime dictated Oliveira's schedule, vacations, home time and monitored his vehicle with an electronic tracking device.


Same as the rideshare drivers. Oliveira joins an industry knowing full well the pay, terms and conditions of that industry (or at least should have known) then claims miss classification after its not to his liking. OTR drivers have been independent contracting since the Interstate system was built by Eisenhower in the mid 50's.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

This is why taxi drivers put up so much shit from their companies because of the pay, now that pay has bottomed out everyone is going to go crazy


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> In this case, Oliveira has argued that he was misclassified, because his work was "substantially identical to the job responsibilities of employee drivers." New Prime dictated Oliveira's schedule, vacations, home time and monitored his vehicle with an electronic tracking device.
> 
> Same as the rideshare drivers. Oliveira joins an industry knowing full well the pay, terms and conditions of that industry (or at least should have known) then claims miss classification after its not to his liking. OTR drivers have been independent contracting since the Interstate system was built by Eisenhower in the mid 50's.


I've been trying to find out if Oliviera owned his own truck or leased a truck from New Prime, which is substantially, the case at least in the Southern California area.

Many, many, many companies own the trucks and lease them to drivers. Drivers in my opinion are not independent contractors since they have zero control over their schedule, do not contract their own loads, do not get paid by the shipper and many times run under the trucking companies MCP. They are owner operators in name only.

What I was referring to about this case and Uber is that Oliviera is claiming and two courts have agreed that arbitration does not apply to him because of the FAA explicitly exempts contracts of employment from arbitration.

I wonder if Uber, because it is a national company, falls under interstate commerce. Some drivers do cross state lines to work and Uber itself does business in most states even though most drivers do not cross state lines.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scot...on-agreements-for-transportation-workers/amp/


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

It is no mystery which way the court will rule now: against the workers. It is pretty much certain. The court is entirely partisan.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

The American consumer and worker is doomed with a Republican Congress, Whitehouse and now Supreme Court for decades possibly.

The GOP say small government, What they mean is less regulation and more laws to screw workers and consumers and have big business win.

The Republicans are the ones that ended class actions and made arbitration the law so that people can not unite to fight these huge corporations that are cheating consumers and workers like Uber and Lyft.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

*Argument analysis: Justices dubious about enforcing arbitration agreements for transportation workers*
Posted Wed, October 3rd, 2018 6:26 pm by Ronald Mann

Of course they're dubious about enforcing arbitration. The last thing our Justice system wants is millions of lawsuits from ignorant gig economy contractors wasting time on the same old complaint. I want fair pay, I want overtime pay, I want vehicle reimbursement, I want workers comp, I want vacation pay, I want medical, I want my FICA/SS paid by others, I want employee benefits.

If you want employee benefits then go become an employee. There are currently 6 million available jobs in the U.S.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> *Argument analysis: Justices dubious about enforcing arbitration agreements for transportation workers*
> Posted Wed, October 3rd, 2018 6:26 pm by Ronald Mann
> 
> Of course they're dubious about enforcing arbitration. The last thing our Justice system wants is millions of lawsuits from ignorant gig economy contractors wasting time on the same old complaint. I want fair pay, I want overtime pay, I want vehicle reimbursement, I want workers comp, I want vacation pay, I want medical, I want my FICA/SS paid by others, I want employee benefits.
> ...


Go back and reread your title.

The Supreme Court is probably not going to enforce arbitration agreements.

Meaning employees or subcontractors WILL be able to sue in front of courts not arbitrators.

Arbitration agreements WILL NOT be valid.



touberornottouber said:


> It is no mystery which way the court will rule now: against the workers. It is pretty much certain. The court is entirely partisan.





Lee239 said:


> The American consumer and worker is doomed with a Republican Congress, Whitehouse and now Supreme Court for decades possibly.
> 
> The GOP say small government, What they mean is less regulation and more laws to screw workers and consumers and have big business win.
> 
> The Republicans are the ones that ended class actions and made arbitration the law so that people can not unite to fight these huge corporations that are cheating consumers and workers like Uber and Lyft.


"There can't be much doubt about the outcome in a case like this one, involving a dispute between a business and its workers in which Roberts and Gorsuch seem so strongly predisposed to side with the worker. So, notwithstanding the long line of cases reading the Federal Arbitration Act broadly, this one has all the indications of a victory for the worker seeking a day in court. Indeed, it could be a candidate for one of the earliest decisions of the term."


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

observer said:


> Go back and reread your title.
> 
> The Supreme Court is probably not going to enforce arbitration agreements.
> 
> ...


Thanks, completely misread that article. That's what you get when reading and driving to the airport at the same time. Ok, sue at will.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Thanks, completely misread that article. That's what you get when reading and driving to the airport at the same time. Ok, sue at will.


You might want to put the phone down while you're driving.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> You might want to put the phone down while you're driving.


Oh, I wasn't driving. I had my 10 year old grandson driving as I just have to keep peaking up at the road and give him a sense of lane direction since he can't see over the steering wheel.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Oh, I wasn't driving. I had my 10 year old grandson driving as I just have to keep peaking up at the road and give him a sense of lane direction since he can't see over the steering wheel.


LoL, ST.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

observer said:


> I've been trying to find out if Oliviera owned his own truck or leased a truck from New Prime, which is substantially, the case at least in the Southern California area.
> 
> Many, many, many companies own the trucks and lease them to drivers. Drivers in my opinion are not independent contractors since they have zero control over their schedule, do not contract their own loads, do not get paid by the shipper and many times run under the trucking companies MCP. They are owner operators in name only.
> 
> ...


Drivers in N.Y., N.J. AND CONN travel interstate everyday.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

If you want to SUE Uber or any drive service you have do it as a business otherwise you would most likely lose.


----------



## SatMan (Mar 20, 2017)

So we should all become an LLC.
*What is an LLC?*

An LLC stands for a Limited Liability Company.
The main reason for forming an LLC - whether you are starting a new business or formalizing an existing one - is to separate your personal affairs from your business.
When done properly, and kept compliant, an LLC means you are not responsible personally for debts or liabilities of your business: invaluable protection.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SatMan said:


> So we should all become an LLC.
> *What is an LLC?*
> 
> An LLC stands for a Limited Liability Company.
> ...


Not completely true.

Yes, you can form an LLC and it may act as a shield in some cases.

But, if you have an accident your LLC and you personally will be sued. You will have to hire a lawyer to defend your LLC and yourself.

LLCs are really structured to protect investors.

The only way to make sure you are covered in an accident or for some injury you cause is to have the proper insurance in a sufficient amount.

Also, when you apply for loans or credit the banks will almost always want the owner of the business to personally guarantee the loan or credit. They won't just loan money without some type of guarantee.


----------



## SatMan (Mar 20, 2017)

observer said:


> Not completely true.
> 
> Yes, you can form an LLC and it may act as a shield in some cases.
> 
> ...


*Limits of Personal Liability Protection*

No LLC or other legal business structure provides absolute protection for its owners from liabilities that may occur in connection with business operations. An LLC owner will be personally liable for his conduct that constitutes fraud or is illegal regardless of whether it is done in the context of operating his LLC's business. Similarly, an LLC owner who acts recklessly or negligently, such as being at fault in an auto accident while driving on company business, is liable for the property and personal injuries resulting from the accident. Any LLC owner who personally guarantees an LLC debt, such as a bank loan, will be personally liable to repay the debt if the LLC defaults on its payment.

Part of the risk of creating a limited liability company is being personally named in a lawsuit along with your LLC. The important question is whether you can be found personally liable for the claims being made in the lawsuit. If you formed your LLC correctly and managed it as a separate legal entity from your personal assets, you should be protected from most debts or liabilities arising out of the operation of the LLC's business. An LLC will not shield you from all possible business-related liabilities, though

As far as uber related issues we need to become an LLC then.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SatMan said:


> *Limits of Personal Liability Protection*
> 
> No LLC or other legal business structure provides absolute protection for its owners from liabilities that may occur in connection with business operations. An LLC owner will be personally liable for his conduct that constitutes fraud or is illegal regardless of whether it is done in the context of operating his LLC's business. Similarly, an LLC owner who acts recklessly or negligently, such as being at fault in an auto accident while driving on company business, is liable for the property and personal injuries resulting from the accident. Any LLC owner who personally guarantees an LLC debt, such as a bank loan, will be personally liable to repay the debt if the LLC defaults on its payment.
> 
> ...


Why?

In what way would an LLC benefit a driver with Uber?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> In this case, Oliveira has argued that he was misclassified, because his work was "substantially identical to the job responsibilities of employee drivers." New Prime dictated Oliveira's schedule, vacations, home time and monitored his vehicle with an electronic tracking device.
> 
> Same as the rideshare drivers. Oliveira joins an industry knowing full well the pay, terms and conditions of that industry (or at least should have known) then claims miss classification after its not to his liking. OTR drivers have been independent contracting since the Interstate system was built by Eisenhower in the mid 50's.


Your point doesn't matter. If I took a job at some grocery store as an employee and agreed to work for $5 an hour I could still sue later on to get past wages because I was not being paid minimum wage. The law requires paying minimum wage regardless of what I agreed to. If this were not the case companies would not have to pay it since they could get desperate people to agree to less.

Similarly, you can agree to be a contractor, but if you are NOT (are treated as an employee) it doesn't matter if you agreed to it or not, you can still sue over it.

Agreeing to something does not make it ok. Or legal.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> In this case, Oliveira has argued that he was misclassified, because his work was "substantially identical to the job responsibilities of employee drivers." New Prime dictated Oliveira's schedule, vacations, home time and monitored his vehicle with an electronic tracking device.
> 
> Same as the rideshare drivers. Oliveira joins an industry knowing full well the pay, terms and conditions of that industry (or at least should have known) then claims miss classification after its not to his liking. OTR drivers have been independent contracting since the Interstate system was built by Eisenhower in the mid 50's.


So what if he knew the terms going in?

If the companies' actions are illegal, they're illegal, period.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

I don't think the timing is ideal, either. Not for our benefit.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Given how it is structured and perceived. (Hugely important in such matters) I believe our only saving grace/argument is that what is absolutely below minimum wage is wait times. Here, .10 cents a minute is never going to accrue to hourly. The counter argument would be it' in addition to. But is still and can never be equal to minimum wage. Breach of labor law. Independent contractor or not.

Pertaining to us.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

observer said:


> I've been trying to find out if Oliviera owned his own truck or leased a truck from New Prime, which is substantially, the case at least in the Southern California area.
> 
> Many, many, many companies own the trucks and lease them to drivers. Drivers in my opinion are not independent contractors since they have zero control over their schedule, do not contract their own loads, do not get paid by the shipper and many times run under the trucking companies MCP. They are owner operators in name only.
> 
> ...


and if they don't own their own truck they are not owner operators, sadly the courts with conservative judges side with big business and against workers and consumers.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Corporations are people too.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

observer said:


> I've been trying to find out if Oliviera owned his own truck or leased a truck from New Prime, which is substantially, the case at least in the Southern California area.
> 
> Many, many, many companies own the trucks and lease them to drivers. Drivers in my opinion are not independent contractors since they have zero control over their schedule, do not contract their own loads, do not get paid by the shipper and many times run under the trucking companies MCP. They are owner operators in name only.
> 
> ...


Canadian drivers cross international lines to deliver passengers in U S.


----------



## Danny3xd (Nov 7, 2016)

Interesting point.

and, here in CT, if you drive for more than 40 minutes or so, your in another state.

Or Long Island sound. I strongly recommend against that. Don't ask me how I know.

(Really liked that car, too)


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.thisisinsider.com/truck-drivers-salary-minimum-wage-court-decision-pam-2018-10



* Copyright © 2018 Insider Inc. All rights reserved. Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our
Terms of Service, Privacy PolicyandCookies Policy.




*An Arkansas court quietly ruled that truck drivers need to be paid minimum wage even when they're not driving on the job - here's what it means for drivers around the US*
Rachel Premack

6h








Some truck drivers get paid less than minimum wage.
David McNew/Getty Images)

Many truck drivers aren't paid for all of the hours they spend on the road.
A class action lawsuit in Arkansas of nearly 3,000 truck drivers argues that the practice goes against the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Those drivers scored a major win today when the federal court in Arkansas ruled against motions by those drivers' former employer: PAM Transport, an Arkansas trucking company founded in 1980.
A federal court decision in Arkansas today may drastically change the way truck drivers are paid.

The court ruled against PAM Transport, an Arkansas trucking company founded in 1980, after the firm was named in a class action suit for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that requires employers to pay truck drivers at least minimum wage.

On Oct. 19, the US District Court in the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville division, denied PAM's motions to dismiss the claims of the three truck drivers who sued PAM in 2016 and nearly 3,000 drivers who joined the class action suit.

That denial means that the Court has decided that the time a driver spends waiting in his truck in the sleeper birth still constitutes work - even though the driver may log that time as "off-duty."

It's a move that speaks to other court cases appearing around the country in favor of ensuring truck drivers are paid for every hour they spend on the road. Last year, a Nebraska court decided that trucking giant Werner Enterprises must pay $780,000 to 52,000 student truck drivers for alleged pay practice violations. Another major carrier, C.R. England, paid $2.35 million in back wages to more than 6,000 drivers in 2016.

Unlike most workers who are paid per hour or in a yearly salary, long-haul truck drivers are typically only paid per mile of driving. However, they spend weeks on the road for work and hours every day doing non-driving work tasks.

And according to the US Department of Labor, "Any work which an employee is required to perform while traveling must, of course, be counted as hours worked."

Truck drivers may be on duty a maximum of 14 hours in a day, with a maximum of 11 hours spent driving. They are expected to wait up to two hours when unloading or loading shipments; they are not paid for those hours waiting. Often, theyspend even more time waiting for their shipments to load or unload and, even then, they are rarely paid "detention pay" for the time spent waiting.

Justin Swidler, the attorney representing the truck drivers in the PAM case, told Business Insider that truck drivers might also spend hours or days not driving because they are waiting for shipments. They are not paid for that time.

The Arkansas decision says that's no longer acceptable. This case suggests that drivers are entitled to minimum wage for 16 hours per workday - every hour spent in the truck save for eight hours of sleep time.

That's because the company has hired the employee with the knowledge that part of their job duties is waiting; the Supreme Court has argued that those employees should be paid even though they are not actively carrying out a work task. As District Court Judge Timothy Brooks wrote in his Oct. 19 memorandum on the PAM case:

There is no ambiguity here, then, as to whether an employer must count as hours worked the time that an employee spends riding in a commercial truck while neither sleeping nor eating: time thus spent "is working" and "any work" performed "while traveling must... be counted as hours worked."

*What does this mean for truck drivers and their employers?*
"The decision may have national implications," Swidler told Business Insider.

This case doesn't necessarily mean the mile-based trucker pay model will be overhauled. But, it does suggest that, if a trucker isn't paid at least minimum wage for the 60 hours a week they work, carriers will be held accountable.

"It's worth noting the case only stands for the proposition that carriers must pay their drivers $7.25 per hour," Swidler said. "Under the FLSA, hourly wages are considered over the course of a whole workweek. This means that while carriers nationwide should understand their minimum wage exposure, companies which pay reasonable wages to their drivers have no reason for concern."

The payout for this case hasn't been determined yet, Swidler said. In 2015, PAM paid truckers $3.45 million in a similar settlement concerning a class action suit by employees who alleged PAM didn't pay them minimum wage.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/gorsuch-arbitration-labor-new-prime-oliveira.amp

And independent contractors win.

Arbitration is out.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

observer said:


> On Oct. 19, the US District Court in the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville division, denied PAM's motions to dismiss the claims of the three truck drivers who sued PAM in 2016 and nearly 3,000 drivers who joined the class action suit.
> 
> That denial means that the Court has decided that the time a driver spends waiting in his truck in the sleeper birth still constitutes work - even though the driver may log that time as "off-duty."


Quoting for context for my next response which should show up below.



observer said:


> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/gorsuch-arbitration-labor-new-prime-oliveira.amp
> 
> And independent contractors win.
> 
> Arbitration is out.


Which is great because it very likely means that shortly uber/lyft will be hit with a class action law suite by drivers for the amount of unpaid time they spend online waiting for pings. See the above case.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

observer said:


> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/gorsuch-arbitration-labor-new-prime-oliveira.amp
> 
> And independent contractors win.
> 
> Arbitration is out.


This case has resolved that mandatory arbitration is illegal for those involved in _interstate _commerce, but does not make clear if the *prospect *of interstate commerce would make this applicable across the board or if it only applies to those directly involved with interstate commerce.

To be more specific: Uber drivers sometimes can get rides across State lines but the vast majority of drivers do not ever leave the boundaries of their home State. Does this mean that this ruling applies to all Uber drivers because they _*might *_cross State lines at some point in the future or does this ruling only apply to those who actively have done so? That is not made clear.

What is clear, without a doubt: *If you have ever taken a passenger across State lines then you cannot be held to mandatory arbitration.*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/gorsuch-arbitration-labor-new-prime-oliveira.amp
> 
> And independent contractors win.
> 
> Arbitration is out.


Wow, this is so huge !!! You should give this its own thread !!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Wow, this is so huge !!! You should give this its own thread !!


There are a couple threads on it. I just added the link here to update this thread.



RDWRER said:


> This case has resolved that mandatory arbitration is illegal for those involved in _interstate _commerce, but does not make clear if the *prospect *of interstate commerce would make this applicable across the board or if it only applies to those directly involved with interstate commerce.
> 
> To be more specific: Uber drivers sometimes can get rides across State lines but the vast majority of drivers do not ever leave the boundaries of their home State. Does this mean that this ruling applies to all Uber drivers because they _*might *_cross State lines at some point in the future or does this ruling only apply to those who actively have done so? That is not made clear.
> 
> What is clear, without a doubt: *If you have ever taken a passenger across State lines then you cannot be held to mandatory arbitration.*


I'm with you on this one and I stated the same thing earlier in the thread.

There is a loophole however in that Uber itself is a national company and Uber allows drivers to work in multiple states. In order for Uber to be exempt I would think they would have to register a separate company in every state they operate in.

There are also many companies that fall under interstate rules whose drivers never leave one state.


----------



## BetterGet5Stars (Dec 16, 2017)

all these dumb people complaining about uber. 

uber is fantastic. the problem is investment bankers with their laundered fed money buying up everything and then get to be our economic dictators.

before that evening is awesome and cool. if you invented the company you can do whatever. i owe you everything. you built the company you have all the glory and authority.

you buy the company with your fake money and install your corporate social injustice puppets? get the f outta here why aren't they arrested for this ridiculous white collar crime.

same scam that's been going on since russia invented their fiat money system to free 23 million slaves. obviously the slavers didn't like it.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

observer said:


> There are a couple threads on it. I just added the link here to update this thread.
> 
> I'm with you on this one and I stated the same thing earlier in the thread.
> 
> ...


I'm not entirely sure that would work because the Feds have jurisdiction even on intrastate commerce if there are interstate commerce implications, and since a large chunk of uber/lyft fares are airport runs with interstate commerce implications I don't think they can escape it without losing those lucrative runs.

Not a lawyer but that's my line of speculation on this one.


----------

