Joint Employers and Occasional Safety-Affecting Duties Satisfy the MCA Exemption Under the FLSA

Introduction

Rosendo Joseph Rosales, III and Leo C. Butler, Jr. (“Plaintiffs–Appellants”) sued Industrial Sales & Services, L.L.C. (“ISS”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), alleging that ISS failed to pay them overtime wages. ISS moved for judgment on stipulated facts, invoking the Motor Carrier Act (“MCA”) exemption to the FLSA’s overtime requirement. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas agreed, holding that ISS was subject to the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction as a joint employer with Alpine Site Services, Inc. (“Alpine”)—a motor private carrier—and that Plaintiffs’ duties were “safety-affecting” transport work covered by the MCA exemption. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that (1) ISS is not a carrier and cannot invoke the exemption, and (2) their transport-related duties were neither frequent nor substantial enough to qualify. The Fifth Circuit, relying on precedent and the parties’ stipulations, affirmed the exemption’s application.

Summary of the Judgment

In a per curiam opinion, the Fifth Circuit addressed two key issues:

Carrier Status of ISS: The court held that ISS, though a separate legal entity that manufactures and loads screwpiles, is a joint employer with Alpine—a motor private carrier—and thus falls within the Secretary of Transportation’s jurisdiction for MCA purposes. Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc. controlled this analysis.
Scope and Frequency of Safety-Affecting Duties: The court rejected the argument that Plaintiffs’ transport-related tasks had to constitute a particular percentage of their hours or occur each workweek. Under 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(b)(3), “continuing duties” that are safety-affecting—performed “regularly or from time to time”—trigger the exemption for all weeks of employment, even those without direct safety work. Plaintiffs acknowledged weekly welding, loading, securing, and safety checks.

The court affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment in favor of ISS, confirming that (a) ISS qualifies as a carrier for MCA exemption purposes and (b) the exemption applies to Plaintiffs’ continuing safety-affecting duties, regardless of the precise time allocation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Boutell v. Walling, 327 U.S. 463 (1946) Supreme Court held mechanics employed by a non-carrier servicing a separate motor carrier did not qualify for the MCA exemption; the entities were “separate and distinct.”
Steinmetz v. Mitchell, 268 F.2d 501 (5th Cir. 1959) Reinforced that a contractor’s employees who perform services for a carrier do not automatically become covered employees of the carrier for exemption purposes.
Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc., 618 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2010) Held that a non-carrier joint employer is subject to the Secretary’s jurisdiction if it shares control over terms and conditions of employment with a carrier.
Cunningham v. Circle 8 Crane Services, L.L.C., 64 F.4th 597 (5th Cir. 2023) Emphasized that exemptions to FLSA overtime must receive a “fair reading” and that the employer bears the burden of proving the exemption.
White v. United States Correctional, L.L.C., 996 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2021) Clarified the standard for interpreting FLSA exemptions.
Carley v. Crest Pumping Technologies, L.L.C., 890 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2018) Reaffirmed the employer’s burden to show that an exemption applies.
Kelley v. Alpine Site Services, Inc., 110 F.4th 812 (5th Cir. 2024) Resolved identical exemption issues on related facts against Alpine.

Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s analysis rested on two pillars:

Joint Employer Jurisdiction: - The MCA exemption in 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1) applies only to employees “with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours.” - Petitioners argued ISS was not a carrier; the court responded that the relevant inquiry is control, not corporate form. Alpine and ISS operate under centralized management: Alpine hires, disciplines, sets pay, supervises schedules, and retains records for ISS employees. - Under Songer, such shared control suffices to bring ISS within the Secretary’s regulatory reach.
Continuing Safety-Affecting Duties: - 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(a) requires both carrier status and qualifying “character of work.” Section 782.2(b)(3) clarifies that performing safety-affecting tasks “regularly or from time to time” meets the exemption for all weeks at that job. - Plaintiffs conceded they performed load-securing, trailer-loading, safety-inspection, and minor maintenance duties at least weekly. - The court rejected a rigid percent-of-time test or a requirement of work in each pay period. Even if no safety work occurs in a particular week, the continuing potential triggers the exemption.

Impact

This decision reinforces two critical points for employers and employees in the transportation sector:

Broad Reach of the MCA Exemption: Non-carrier entities functioning as joint employers with carriers cannot sidestep the exemption by corporate separation alone. Control over employment terms and integration into the carrier’s safety regime are decisive.
Flexible Frequency Standard: Employers need not meticulously track the hours each worker spends on safety-affecting tasks. Once an employee’s duties include regular or occasional safety work, the exemption applies uniformly.

Going forward, litigants will focus on the nature of control between carriers and contractors, and the scope of employees’ safety duties, rather than strict hour-counting measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

FLSA Overtime Requirement: Generally, workers must be paid time-and-a-half for hours beyond 40 per week (29 U.S.C. § 207).
Motor Carrier Act (MCA) Exemption: An exception to FLSA overtime (29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)) for employees under the Secretary of Transportation’s rules (49 U.S.C. § 31502) in motor private carriers.
Motor Private Carrier: A company that transports its own goods by motor vehicle and is regulated by the Department of Transportation’s safety rules.
Joint Employer: Two entities share control over employment terms, such that both are responsible under labor statutes.
Safety-Affecting Duties: Tasks like loading, securing cargo, and inspecting equipment that directly impact the safe operation of a carrier’s vehicles.
Continuing Duties Standard: Once an employee’s job includes regular or occasional safety-affecting tasks, they fall within the MCA exemption for every week they hold that role—even if no such tasks occur in a particular workweek.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rosales v. Industrial Sales & Services clarifies that:

Corporate separateness does not shield a non-carrier from the MCA exemption when it shares management and control with a motor private carrier.
Employers need not demarcate precisely how many hours employees spend on safety tasks; the “continuing duties” framework suffices once such tasks occur “regularly or from time to time.”

This ruling strengthens the MCA exemption’s application, ensures predictability for motor carrier operations, and underscores the importance of examining the substance of employment relationships over form. Practitioners should assess control structures and the nature of employees’ tasks when evaluating overtime obligations under the FLSA.