Brusstar v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

636 F. Supp. 1557, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1204, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23839
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 23, 1986
DocketCiv. A. 85-3773
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 636 F. Supp. 1557 (Brusstar v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brusstar v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 636 F. Supp. 1557, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1204, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23839 (E.D. Pa. 1986).

Opinion

OPINION

LUONGO, Chief Judge.

This is an action by employees 1 of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) to recover unpaid overtime wages allegedly due under § 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, contending that SEPTA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is obligated to comply with the FLSA. For the reasons stated below, I will grant plaintiffs’ motion.

Under the FLSA, employees must be paid for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a rate of one and one-half times their normal pay rate. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The statutory work week includes all time spent performing activities which “are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.” Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256, 76 S.Ct. 330, 335, 100 L.Ed. 267 (1956).

When the FLSA was passed in 1938, it specifically excluded states and their political subdivisions from its coverage. Since 1961, however, Congress has gradually broadened the FLSA’s coverage. As amended in 1974, the FLSA imposes minimum wage and maximum hour requirements upon most public employers, specifically including states and their political subdivisions. See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 836-39, 96 S.Ct. 2465, 2467-68, 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976).

In National League of Cities v. Usery, the Supreme Court decided that the Tenth Amendment prohibits application of the FLSA’s wage and hour provisions to state employees engaged in traditional governmental functions. After a series of decisions narrowly construing this holding, e.g., Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981); United Transportation Union v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 455 U.S. 678, 102 S.Ct. 1349, 71 L.Ed.2d 547 (1982); EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 103 S.Ct. 1054, 75 L.Ed.2d 18 (1983), the Supreme Court overruled National League of Cities in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Au *1559 thority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985). The majority opinion, in which five Justices joined, stated that “the attempt to draw the boundaries of state regulatory immunity in terms of ‘traditional governmental function’ is not only unworkable but is inconsistent with established principles of federalism.” Id. at —, 105 S.Ct. at 1007.

The pre-Garcia agreement between SEPTA and its employees provided for overtime compensation only after 45 hours of work. Certain hours spent performing work-related activities were not included in the computation of overtime. SEPTA recognizes that Garcia requires it to modify its compensation practices in accordance with the FLSA. The dispute between the parties concerns SEPTA’s pr e-Garcia liability. Plaintiffs contend that even before Garcia was decided the Third Circuit had held that operation of a local mass transit system was not a traditional state or local government function, and that a publicly owned transit authority was therefore subject to the FLSA. See Kramer v. New Castle Area Transit Authority, 677 F.2d 308 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1146, 103 S.Ct. 786, 74 L.Ed.2d 993 (1983). Accordingly, plaintiffs claim they are entitled to unpaid overtime wages as of April 30, 1982, the date of the Kramer decision. They have moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that Kramer controls the question of SEPTA’s liability. SEPTA, in opposing plaintiffs’ motion, contends that Kramer was wrongly decided. SEPTA also argues that much of the Kramer opinion is dictum, and that the case is distinguishable.

I note first that, contrary to SEPTA’s apparent desire that I do so, I am not free to reconsider or reject the Third Circuit’s holding in Kramer. Kramer remains the law of this circuit unless or until it is overruled. 2 I will therefore confine myself to the question of whether Kramer, as a matter of law, precludes SEPTA from arguing that it was exempt from the FLSA until the Supreme Court decided Garcia.

In Kramer, the Third Circuit concluded that “the operation of mass transit systems ‘is not among the functions traditionally performed by state and local governments.’ ” Kramer, 677 F.2d at 310 (quoting United Transportation Union v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 455 U.S. at 686, 102 S.Ct. at 1355). The court emphasized that local mass transit systems have historically been privately owned and operated. State involvement became common only after Congress passed the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 49 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., which provided for federal assistance to state and local governments operating transportation systems. According to the Third Circuit, “[t]he whole move away from private transit systems and into public systems was started and effected by the federal government which provided the financial support to allow the changeover to public transportation companies.” Kramer, 677 F.2d at 310. Moreover, the federal government is actively involved, both financially and otherwise, in local mass transportation. The Third Circuit thus held that “the states are precluded from claiming, at this late date, that mass transit is a service which they traditionally provide.” Id.

SEPTA claims that the Third Circuit’s broad language is dictum, and that Kramer stands only for the proposition that the New Castle Area Transit Authority was not performing traditional governmental functions. Thus, SEPTA contends, it must be given the opportunity to demonstrate that its role is different.

I disagree with SEPTA’s characterization of Kramer. The Third Circuit’s holding was based on a broad perception of history, not merely on an analysis of the specific role and background of the New Castle Area Transit Authority.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McGrath v. City of Philadelphia
864 F. Supp. 466 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1994)
Bester v. Chicago Transit Authority
676 F. Supp. 833 (N.D. Illinois, 1987)
Toombs v. Manning
640 F. Supp. 938 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
636 F. Supp. 1557, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1204, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brusstar-v-southeastern-pennsylvania-transportation-authority-paed-1986.