A jury verdict in favor of former employees of an oil well construction company claiming they were denied overtime has been thrown out by a federal appeals court.

The U.S. Court Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the jury's verdict and ruled in favor of defendant Crest Pumping Technologies. The court held that the federal magistrate judge overseeing the case improperly placed the burden of proof on the applicability of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act on Crest.

According to Fifth Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes, who wrote the court's May 16 opinion, the lead plaintiffs of the putative class action, Scot Carley and Brandon Brown, were cementers for Crest who alleged they were not adequately compensated with overtime pay.

Crest argued cementers were exempt from overtime pay under the Motor Carriers Act, as cementers used Ford F-350 trucks during the course of their duties. During the litigation, the weight of such vehicles became an issue, and the plaintiffs, according to the court, had not refuted Crest's evidence that their vehicles had a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 11,500 pounds, and thus “no reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiffs were not subject to the MCA exemption.”

The argument in the case shifted from the gross weight of the vehicles to whom should bear the burden of proof as to whether the Corrections Act provided an exception to the MCA exemption. Ultimately the magistrate judge placed that burden on Crest.

“The MCA exemption to FLSA overtime requirements appears at 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), which exempts employees subject to Secretary of Transportation standards from overtime compensation. The Supreme Court has reasoned that the purpose of the MCA exemption was primarily to ensure that operators of vehicles affecting highway safety were regulated by an entity with a greater understanding of the particular safety concerns,” Haynes explained.

She continued, “After June 6, 2008, the Corrections Act went into effect, designating a class of employees to which the MCA exemption does not apply. That class includes 'covered employees,' who are those employees: (1) who [are] employed by a motor carrier or motor private carrier . . . ; (2) whose work, in whole or in part, is defined— (A) as that of a driver, driver's helper, loader, or mechanic; and (B) as affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce, . . . ; and (3) who perform[] duties on motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less.”

As it applies to this case, Haynes said the Corrections Act is unclear about the burden of proving whether the vehicles weigh 10,000 pounds or less, and there is a lack of precedent on the issue.

“The Corrections Act was codified under 29 U.S.C. § 207, which sets out FLSA standards that Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving lack of compliance by an employer. In other words, the Corrections Act defines a 'covered employee' in a statute subsection under which the plaintiff has the burden of proof for FLSA coverage,” Haynes said. “Although an employer more logically should bear the burden of proving an exemption from FLSA, here, the disputed provision is not codified as an exemption but, rather, under the provision defining when FLSA mandates overtime pay. This statutory structure indicates that the Corrections Act is not meant to be read in the same way as exclusionary language within a FLSA exemption.”

Adam W. Hansen of Apollo Law represents the plaintiffs. Jennifer Lynn Anderson of Jones Walker represents Crest. Neither responded to requests for comment.