Wage & Hour
Ninth Circuit Upholds Preemption of California Break Rules for Bus Drivers
Updated
In People of the State of California v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Ninth Circuit denied California’s petition for review and upheld the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 2020 determination that California’s meal and rest break rules are preempted as applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles. The petition was denied in full.
Background
The Motor Carrier Safety Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to review state laws on commercial motor vehicle safety and gives the agency express power to preempt them. When a state rule is “additional to or more stringent than” the federal hours-of-service regulations, it may be preempted if it has no safety benefit, is incompatible with federal rules, or imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
In 2018, the FMCSA preempted California’s meal and rest break rules for drivers of property-carrying vehicles, a decision the Ninth Circuit upheld in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
In 2020, acting on a petition from the American Bus Association, the agency extended that preemption to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles. The People of the State of California, the Attorney General, and the Labor Commissioner petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review.
What the Court Held on Preemption Authority
California argued that its break rules fell outside the FMCSA’s preemption authority, which reaches only state rules “on commercial motor vehicle safety,” and that laws of general applicability could not qualify. The court held this argument was foreclosed by Teamsters, which already concluded the agency permissibly treated California’s break rules as regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety within its preemption reach.
The court also rejected California’s narrower reading of Teamsters—that the FMCSA could not preempt mid-shift break rules for passenger-carrying drivers because it had issued no comparable break regulation of its own. The federal hours-of-service rules still dictate how long such a driver may remain on duty before a mandatory off-duty period, the court reasoned, so the state and federal rules share the same fatigue-management purpose.
California’s meal and rest break rules are state regulations “on commercial motor vehicle safety” within the FMCSA’s preemption authority, even for passenger-carrying drivers, and even though no comparable federal mid-shift break rule exists.
What the Court Held on the Burden Analysis
Reviewing under the Administrative Procedure Act’s deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard, the court held that the record supported the agency’s finding that the break rules impose a significant operational burden on operators of passenger-carrying vehicles. That single ground was enough to sustain preemption, so the court did not reach the agency’s findings on safety benefit or incompatibility.
The court found the record replete with comments about the cost and scheduling difficulties of compliance, including the “patchwork of requirements” created by the break rules of twenty other states. It rejected California’s contention that the agency overlooked flexibility built into the rules, noting that “on duty” meal periods are tightly limited and rest breaks may not be subject to on-call status.
Finally, the court held that California’s remaining arguments—about the proper commerce standard, the cumulative-burden analysis, and reliance on industry comments—were also foreclosed by Teamsters. The petition for review was denied.
What This Means for You
This decision confirms that the FMCSA’s federal preemption of California’s meal and rest break rules extends to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles subject to the federal hours-of-service regulations. It touches wage-and-hour disputes involving meal and rest break obligations for commercial drivers in interstate operations.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.