© 2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2025 ed. | 93 interstate commerce if, among other things, “(1) the shipper, although it did not have to have lined up its ultimate customers when the product arrived, based its determination of the total volume to be shipped on projections of customer demand that have some factual basis; (2) no processing or substantial product modification of substance occur[red] at the warehouse; (3) while in the warehouse, the merchandise [wa]s subject to the shipper’s control and direction as to the subsequent transportation; and (4) the shipper or consignee [was responsible for] the ultimate payment for transportation charges even if the warehouse or distribution center directly pays the transportation charges to the carrier.”530 Finally, the federal exemption requires that each vehicle that an employee works with have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 pounds or more in order for that employee to be exempt from overtime.531 The Technical Corrections Act of 2008 further clarified this by excluding from the exemption any employee of a motor carrier whose job, in whole or in part, affects the safe operation of vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less and who performs duties on motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less.532 Thus, only employees who perform duties exclusively on a vehicle weighing 10,001 pounds or more in a workweek are exempt. For example, an employee who drives both a vehicle weighing less than 10,001 pounds and a vehicle above that amount in the same workweek cannot be claimed as exempt.533 b. Massachusetts Motor Carrier Exemption The primary difference between the Massachusetts motor carrier exemption and the corresponding federal exemption is that, in Massachusetts, the exemption covers a narrower group of employees. Specifically, the Massachusetts exemption applies only to drivers and drivers’ helpers—unlike the federal exemption, which also includes loaders and mechanics.534 The DLS has stated that the two exemptions are otherwise identical.535 Further, even though Massachusetts excludes employees other than drivers or drivers’ helpers, truck loaders who spend as little as five percent of their time riding trucks and assessing the loads for safety purposes 530 Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd., 589 F.3d 895, 899-900 (7th Cir. 2009); see also DOL Wage & Hour Opinion Letter FLSA2005-10 (Jan. 11, 2005) (finding motor carrier exemption applicable under revised DOT Guidelines for jurisdiction under the Motor Carrier Act, 57 Fed. Reg. 19812, May 8, 1992, which include the four Collins factors). 531 See 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 782.1 et seq. Effective August 10, 2005, Congress changed the definition of a “motor carrier” to add this 10,000 pound weight component to the definition and clarify that the poundage requirement must be met on a truck-by-truck basis. 532 McMaster v. E. Armored Servs., Inc., 780 F.3d 167, 169 (3d Cir. 2015); Schilling v. Schmidt Baking Co., Inc., 876 F.3d 596, 600 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Technical Corrections Act of 2008, §306(c), Pub. L. No. 110-244). 533 WHD Field Assistance Bulletin 2010-2. 534 See M.G.L. ch. 151, § 1A(8); DLS Opinion Letter MW-2002-008 (Feb. 26, 2002) (explaining that Massachusetts exemption is limited to “drivers or helpers on trucks” and therefore excludes loaders and mechanics); DLS Opinion Letter MW-2002-022 (Aug. 6, 2002) (maintaining that dock workers who do not spend any time driving on trucks are loaders and therefore are not exempt from Massachusetts overtime requirements even though their duties affect motor vehicle safety). 535 DLS Opinion Letter MW-2002-008 (Feb. 26, 2002) (“The only substantive difference between the Massachusetts state exemption and the FLSA exemption . . . is in the employees covered by the exemption.”); DLS Opinion Letter MW-2002-025 (Dec. 16, 2002) (noting that Massachusetts exemption closely tracks exemption found under federal law and thus would be interpreted in same manner). While the DLS has not explicitly adopted the FLSA’s 10,000 pound requirement, it seems likely that it would do so given the language in these opinion letters.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4