Mass-Peculiarities: An Employers Guide to Wage & Hour Law in the Bay State 2022 Edition

118 | Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2022 ed. © 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP from overtime. 659 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. 660 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. 661 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. 662 Aside from this difference, the Massachusetts exemption closely tracks the federal, and the DLS has stated that the two exemptions are otherwise identical. 663 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 qualify as “drivers’ helpers” under the Massachusetts exemption because these employees fit within the Commonwealth’s broad definition of the term. 664 c. Massachusetts Common Carrier Exemption In addition to the Commonwealth’s motor carrier exemption, Massachusetts also exempts employees of businesses “licensed and regulated pursuant to chapter [159A]” from its overtime requirements. 665 This additional exemption covers common carriers operating some passenger vehicles, including public transportation, charters, and other for-hire passenger vehicles. 666 The 659 See 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 782.1 et seq . Effect ive August 10, 2005, Congress changed the definit ion of a “motor carrier” to add this 10,000 poundweight component to the definit ion and clarify that the poundage requirement must be met on a t ruck-by-t ruck basis. 660 McMaster v. E. Armored Servs., Inc. , 780 F.3d 167, 169 (3dCir. 2015); Schilling v. Schmidt Baking Co., Inc. , 876 F.3d 596, 600 (4th Cir. 2017) (quot ingTechnical Correct ions Act of 2008, §306(c), Pub. L. No. 110-244). 661 WHD Field Assistance Bullet in 2010-2. 662 See M.G.L. ch. 151, § 1A(8); DLS Opinion Let ter MW-2002-008 (Feb. 26, 2002) (explaining that Massachuset t s exempt ion is limited to “drivers or helpers on t rucks” and therefore excludes loaders and mechanics); DLS Opinion Let ter MW-2002-022 (Aug. 6, 2002) (maintaining that dock workers who do not spend any t ime driving on t rucks are loaders and therefore are not exempt from Massachuset t s overt ime requirement s even though their dut ies affect motor vehicle safety). 663 DLS Opinion Let ter MW-2002-008 (Feb. 26, 2002) (“The only substant ive difference between the Massachuset t s state exempt ion and the FLSA exempt ion . . . is in the employees covered by the exempt ion.”); DLSOpinion Let ter MW-2002-025 (Dec. 16, 2002) (not ing that Massachuset t s exemption closely t racks exemption found under federal law and thus would be interpreted in same manner). While the DLS has not explicit ly adopted the FLSA’s 10,000 pound requirement , it seems likely that it would do so given the language in these opinion let ters. 664 See 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(b)(3); DLS Opinion Let ter MW-2003-005 (Mar. 17, 2003). 665 M.G.L. ch. 151, § 1A(11). 666 See M.G.L. ch. 159A, § 1.