A court ruling not to sleep on

A recent federal court of appeals decision allows for team drivers to be compensated for time spent in sleeper berths – the first time a federal court has ruled on the issue – potentially affecting team driver pay structures.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that team drivers for CRST International and CRST Expedited should be paid for sleeper berth time beyond eight hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although there have been other lawsuits related to sleeper berth time, this is the first published opinion on the matter.

While limited in scope, the First Circuit ruling may inform how large carriers with team driver operations determine pay.

Who benefits from team operations?

To determine whether or not an employee’s time worked is to be paid – called compensable work or time by the court – circuit courts have applied what is called the predominant benefit test.

This test states that time is compensable work when it is spent predominantly for the employer’s benefit. In cases involving waiting, which applies to sleeper berth time, time is compensable when an employee is “engaged to wait.” However, that time is not compensable when the employee is “waiting to be engaged.”

CRST argued that sleeper berth time falls under “waiting to be engaged.” During this time, drivers can sleep, fix meals, watch television and access the internet. Meanwhile, the driving teammate is responsible for all work-related duties while the other rests. Therefore, sleeper berth time is primarily for the employee’s benefit.

CRST also argued that Department of Transportation regulations classify sleeper berth time as off-duty and non-compensable. However, the First Circuit found that DOT regulations deal with safety, not compensation. Questions of pay are answered by Department of Labor regulations.

On the other hand, plaintiffs in the CRST lawsuit argued that since drivers are confined to the restrictive environment of the sleeper berth, such time predominantly benefits the employer.

Plaintiffs pointed out that the whole point of team drivers is to keep the truck moving while rest periods are being taken, thereby increasing profits.

The First Circuit agreed with plaintiffs’ argument regarding confinement.

“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.”

The court also found that the fact that team drivers are traveling during sleeper berth time suggests that such time is for CRST’s benefit.

“Indeed, CRST understands the necessity of drivers’ sleeper berth time to the company’s bottom line, explaining that its team driving model allows it to ‘get twice the utilization out of the truck and keep that cargo moving … 20 hours a day or more,’” the court stated. “Such speed of travel is made possible only by the resting driver resetting their driving hours in the sleeper berth while their teammate continues to drive.”

Lastly, the First Circuit pointed out that the driving teammate may call on the resting teammate to provide emergency assistance, even during the mandatory 10-hour off-duty period.

Previous sleeper berth lawsuits

The First Circuit’s published opinion sets up precedent on an issue that carriers have addressed by settling cases.

In a Kansas federal court, a class of truckers for TransAm Trucking sued the company for lost wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Among the various claims, plaintiffs argued they were paid below the minimum wage during orientation when accounting for sleeper berth time. Last September, the court dismissed those claims.

In 2018, a CRST driver filed a proposed class-action wage lawsuit based on sleeper berth time in a team driver setting. However, a California federal court denied class certification, and the case was dismissed in 2021.

A lawsuit filed against New Prime by Rocky Haworth in 2019 also included claims of sleeper berth time being compensable.

Like the TransAm lawsuit, those claims were combined with several others regarding unpaid wages. Haworth’s lawsuit was similar to the high-profile lawsuit filed by Dominic Oliveira, which made its way to the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the drivers, New Prime settled both cases. Consequently, the issue of sleeper berth compensation was never decided upon by the court.

In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation. That lawsuit also involved driver trainees claiming they were not compensated for sleeper berth time. Swift settled the case in October 2020.

Similar to the CRST lawsuit, a class-action lawsuit filed against PAM Transport alleged that team drivers should be paid for sleeper berth time in excess of eight hours. The lawsuit also included several other wage claims made by student drivers and solo drivers. Again, the issue never made it to trial. PAM Transport settled all claims for $16.5 million in July 2020.

In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that trainees for Oregon-based May Trucking Company are not entitled to compensation for time spent in the sleeper berth.

What does the CRST case mean for sleeper berth pay?

Although precedent is now in the books, carriers may not be quick to change pay structures.

This is the first time a federal court has set precedent on the matter of sleeper berth time and pay. In most of the above-cited cases, trucking companies settled before the courts could weigh in on the topic. And in the May Trucking Company case, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion was unpublished, meaning it cannot be cited when arguing similar cases.

For more than a decade, trucking companies have been able to avoid paying for sleeper berth time in any context by settling lawsuits. CRST was able to settle most of the claims in the wage lawsuit but decided to dispute the district court’s finding that sleeper berth time beyond eight hours should be included.

If CRST had settled all claims, the lawsuit would be another footnote in sleeper berth pay. But by having the First Circuit intervene, judicial precedent has now been established.

That precedent applies only to company drivers in a team setting. Determination of the hourly pay rate for solo drivers will not factor in sleeper berth time, since these drivers have more freedom by virtue of being able to stop and exit the truck.

Since the case was decided by the First Circuit, sleeper berth compensation challenges will favor drivers in the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Not counting the D.C. Circuit, the First Circuit is the smallest federal appellate court. The fate of similar claims in other states is still up in the air.

CRST has asked the First Circuit to rehear the case. As of press time, the court had not responded to that request. LL