Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Joshua Agsalud, Director of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawaii v. Pony Express Courier Corporation of America

Joshua Agsalud, Dir. of Labor & Indus. Rels., State of Haw. v. Pony Express Courier Corp. of Am., 833 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1987)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-12-01
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Appellant Pony Express, a carrier regulated under the federal Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq., argues that the Motor Carrier Act preempts Hawaii Revised Stat. § 387-3(a) requiring employers to pay time-and-one-half for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Three circuits have considered this contention and have rejected it. See Pettis Moving Co. v. Roberts, 784 F.2d 439 (2nd Cir.1986); Central Delivery Serv. v. Burch, 486 F.2d 1399 (4th Cir.1973), mem. aff'g 355 F.Supp. 954 (D.Md.); Williams v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Joshua Agsalud, Director of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawaii v. Pony Express Courier Corporation of America. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
12 opinions
AGSALUD v. PONY EXP. COURIER CORP. OF AMERICA,833 F.2d 809(9th Cir. 1987)
JOSHUA AGSALUD, DIRECTOR OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAII,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PONY EXPRESS COURIER CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 86-2852.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted November 4, 1987.
Decided December 1, 1987.
Page 810
Barbara A. Petrus, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant-appellant.

Bruce W. Rudeen, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, WRIGHT and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant Pony Express, a carrier regulated under the federal Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 3101et seq.,argues that the Motor Carrier Act preempts Hawaii Revised Stat. § 387-3(a) requiring employers to pay time-and-one-half for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

[2] Three circuits have considered this contention and have rejected it.See Pettis Moving Co. v. Roberts,784 F.2d 439(2nd Cir. 1986);Central Delivery Serv. v. Burch,486 F.2d 1399 (4th Cir. 1973),mem. aff'g355 F. Supp. 954(D.Md.);Williamsv. W.M.A. Transit Co.,472 F.2d 1258(D.C. Cir. 1972). We agree for the reasons adequately stated in these opinions.

[3]Pony Expressoffers only one new contention, arguing the federal and state statutes conflict because the "practical effect" of the Hawaii overtime pay law is to set the maximum number of hours at 40 per week, whereas Department of Transportation regulations generally provide for a maximum workweek of 60 hours. 49 C.F.R. § 395.3(b). Pony Express did not show that Hawaii's overtime pay statute has the same effect as a regulation setting a firm maximum on hours worked. One need not be an economist to realize that some employers may continue to provide more than 40 hours of work even though an overtime premium is required, because paying the premium may be cheaper than the alternatives of not providing service to customers or hiring more help.

[4] AFFIRMED.