In a series of orders issued on April 23, 2009, Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg held that nearly all of the plaintiffs in the federal court litigation may proceed to trial on their overtime claims. Judge Seeborg rejected Cintas’ multiple motions for summary judgment – that is, judgment without a trial – holding that Cintas failed to prove that individual plaintiffs were exempt from federal overtime requirements. To read Judge Seeborg’s April 23, 2009 orders, click here.

Cintas’ principal legal defense to plaintiffs’ overtime claims is based on the Motor Carrier Act, which excludes from overtime protections certain drivers who are subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation because they operate vehicles in interstate commerce. Cintas sought summary judgment against most of the remaining plaintiffs based on its argument that they are exempt from federal overtime requirements because they are “subject to” transporting goods in interstate commerce, even if there is no proof that they actually crossed cross state lines or delivered goods from out-of-state. Plaintiffs vigorously opposed Cintas’ motions, which would have terminated the litigating plaintiffs’ claims without a trial.

Cintas argued that the exemption applied to all of the plaintiffs, even those who never actually drive across state lines, merely because they might be called upon to transport some items in interstate commerce from time to time. Judge Seeborg rejected Cintas’ argument, and ruled instead that for Cintas to prove that it did not have to pay overtime pay to a driver who never actually crossed state lines, Cintas had to show that the driver actually transported more than a minimal amount of items that are traveling in interstate commerce. Under the Motor Carrier exemption, items like uniforms, mats, and towels are not usually within “interstate commerce” unless a driver must actually cross state lines to make his or her deliveries. Judge Seeborg also rejected Cintas’ argument that soap and air freshener delivered by plaintiffs are “interstate commerce” items under federal law. Because Cintas did not show that the plaintiffs transported enough items in interstate commerce, Judge Seeborg ruled that Cintas was not entitled to judgment in its favor. Instead, Judge Seeborg will now set a trial on plaintiffs’ overtime claims.

The April 23, 2009 rulings come on the heels of other rulings in plaintiffs’ favor in the litigation. For example, Judge Seeborg ruled on November 13, 2008, that unless Cintas can prove that any plaintiff who worked for Cintas after August 10, 2005 both drove a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds and either crossed state lines regularly or delivered “interstate” products, Cintas must provide that plaintiff with legally calculated overtime pay. On April 23, Judge Seeborg held that even though Cintas proved that some plaintiffs drove trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds after August 10, 2005, it had not proven the separate requirement that those plaintiffs also transported more than a minimal amount of items in interstate commerce.

In other rulings on April 23, 2009, Judge Seeborg denied plaintiffs’ motion for a ruling that Cintas’ current SSR pay structure violates federal overtime law because it does not properly include all forms of performance-related compensation in SSRs’ overtime calculations. Judge Seeborg did not address whether the pay plan is lawful, but concluded that plaintiffs’ challenge to it was not properly before him. Judge Seeborg also denied plaintiffs’ motion to allow plaintiffs to add certain state law claims for trial.

Finally, the question whether Cintas has produced to the plaintiffs sufficient documents and other evidence relating to its Motor Carrier Act defense – concerning the items plaintiffs actually delivered to and picked up from customers serviced on their routes – remains pending before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. Plaintiffs contend that Cintas had not adequately complied with Judge James’ earlier order requiring Cintas to produce this evidence. We are awaiting Judge James’ decision on whether to order Cintas to produce the additional evidence we have requested.

As we continue to prepare for trial, you may hear from members of our litigation team with questions about your claims and your work history at Cintas. Please respond promptly to these inquiries so that we can develop the information necessary to present your claims most effectively.

In December 2008, Arbitrator Bruce Meyerson ruled that Cintas’ arbitration agreements allow all of the arbitrating claimants to proceed collectively on their federal overtime claims and as a class action on their state law overtime claims – which is just what we had requested. Although there is a dispute about whether his ruling fully applies to those claimants who signed the 1996 version of the Cintas arbitration agreements (or whether their participation in the arbitration is limited to bringing only their state law claims), that dispute will not be resolved until June at the earliest.

Claimants have asked the federal court to approve Arbitrator Meyerson’s December 2008 decision. Cintas has asked the court to vacate that ruling, though, and to prohibit any of the arbitrating claimants from pursuing their overtime claims on a class or collective basis, despite the Arbitrator’s conclusion that the agreements allow class and collective arbitration. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the federal court will hold a hearing on the parties’ motions on June 2, 2009. In the meantime, the arbitration is going forward.

Since his December 2008 in our favor, Arbitrator Meyerson has twice refused Cintas’ requests to stay further proceedings in the arbitration. Thus, the parties have now started the “class certification” phase of the arbitration, in which Arbitrator Meyerson will decide whether your overtime claims are similar enough, as a matter of fact and law, to be decided for the class as a whole. If Arbitrator Meyerson grants class certification, another notice will be issued to thousands more current and former SSRs informing them about their right to participate in this arbitration.

After class certification, the arbitration will proceed to a decision on the merits.

We are currently requesting information from Cintas to help support your claims in arbitration. If you hear from a member of our litigation team requesting information from you about your claims, please respond promptly so we can develop the information needed to present your claim most effectively.

Cintas' 70 lawsuits around the country against 1,900 of the arbitrating plaintiffs remain stayed, meaning that Cintas cannot use them to force those plaintiffs to arbitrate their overtime claims separately, rather than in the San Francisco arbitration. Those cases remain pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has deferred any ruling for at least several more months; and in June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down Cintas’ request to review those cases. In light of Arbitrator Meyerson’s December 11, 2008 ruling that the Cintas arbitration agreements allow class and collective proceedings, we remain confident that Cintas’ lawsuits will be dismissed once the Ninth Circuit finally issues its decision. Although Cintas has asked the federal judge to block the arbitration from going forward, at this point the arbitration is proceeding and will likely continue at least until we have heard from the Ninth Circuit.

* * *

As always, if you are contacted by a member of our litigation team with questions about this case or your claims, it is extremely important for you to respond promptly to any such requests. The information we obtain from you is critical to help us to pursue your claims. Also, please keep our legal team informed of any changes to your address, telephone number, or email address, so that we can contact you. Use the contact form on this website to update your contact information.