Hunnell v. Yoe Indus. Concrete Servs.

Hunnell v. Yoe Indus. Concrete Servs.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Lee Hunnell commenced this action against his former employer, defendant Yoe Industrial Concrete Services, Inc. t/a Yoe Industrial Services ("Yoe Industrial"). Hunnell asserts claims for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and unpaid non-overtime compensation under Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), 43 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 260.1 et seq. Yoe Industrial moves to dismiss Hunnell's WPCL claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, we will grant Yoe Industrial's motion.

I. Factual Background & Procedural History

Hunnell was employed by Yoe Industrial from October 29, 2018, to August 23, 2019. (See Doc. 9 ¶ 2). During his employment, he was paid for 1,472.5 hours at a non-overtime hourly rate of $20.50. (Id. ¶ 19). [*2]  Hunnell alleges that, before he was hired, he and Yoe Industrial entered into an oral contract regarding his hourly rate of pay, which the parties agreed would be $20.50. (Id. ¶¶ 50-51).¹

After starting at Yoe Industrial, Hunnell was given a copy of the company's Employee Handbook, which lays out its policy regarding travel-time pay ("Travel Time Policy"). (See id. ¶¶ 14-15). The Travel Time Policy states: "Travel time is only paid on jobs exceeding (1) one hour travel time each way. The Company will pay for the time after that first hour to and from the job site." (Doc. 1 at 32).² Consistent with its Travel Time Policy, Yoe Industrial has not paid Hunnell for roughly 110.25 hours of travel time to and from remote job sites. (Doc. 9 ¶¶ 25, 52).

Hunnell claims that Yoe Industrial's Travel Time Policy is unlawful. He specifically asserts that the policy violates FLSA regulation 29 C.F.R. § 785.38, which requires employers to pay for certain travel time if the employee is required to report to the employer's facility before traveling to a job site.³ (Doc. 9 ¶ 16). In support, Hunnell alleges that he and the other putative collective-action members were required to report to Yoe Industrial's Dallastown, [*3]  Pennsylvania facility before and after dispatching to remote job sites. (Id. ¶ 13). He therefore claims that Yoe Industrial has withheld lawfully earned wages that are due under 29 C.F.R. § 785.38. (Id. ¶¶ 52-53). Yoe Industrial denies that Hunnell was required to report to its Dallastown facility before traveling to job sites. (Doc. 13 ¶ 13).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.