Truck Drivers and California Wage and Hour Law: Payment Plans, Off-the-Clock Work, and Cell Phones

On August 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Williams, et al., v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., which followed a wage and hour trial for California-based truck drivers. Plaintiffs are three California-based truck drivers who were employed by J.B. Hunt beginning in 2019. The plaintiffs in that case alleged that they were not paid properly or reimbursed for their business expenses, including the use of their cell phones.

The trial judge, the Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez of the Central District of California, had granted summary judgment to J.B. Hunt on the following causes of action: (1) a claim that J.B. Hunt had not paid its drivers for all hours worked; (2) a claim that J.B. Hunt was not liable for failing to pay for off-the-clock work; and (3) a claim that J.B. Hunt had violated California’s wage statement law.

The case then proceeded to trial, after which the district court entered judgment in favor of J.B. Hunt for failure to reimburse its drivers for necessary business expenses and awarded costs to J.B. Hunt.

The Ninth Circuit’s review of the district court’s actions provides insight into how to litigate these claims moving forward. Here are some of the most significant takeaways:

1. Truck Drivers and Piece-Rate Pay

In California, piece rate pay, meaning pay based on activities completed as opposed to hours worked, is governed by  California Labor Code § 226.2. Pursuant to Section 226.2, employees paid by the piece must be separately compensated for rest and recovery periods. This compensation must be “at an hourly rate that is no less than the applicable minimum wage.”
 
Section 226.2 also requires that piece rate employees be paid separately for “nonproductive time.” That means time during which employees are at work but not performing the activities for which they receive piece-rate compensation. 
 
However, Section 226.2 has  an exception for hybrid compensation plans where employees are paid partially by the piece and partially by the hour. Under Section 226.2(a)(7), “[a]n employer who, in addition to paying any piece-rate compensation, pays an hourly rate of at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, shall be deemed in compliance” with the statute’s requirement that employers who pay only on a piece-rate basis must separately compensate for nonproductive time. 
 
In December 2018, J.B. Hunt implemented new pay plans for most of its California-based drivers. Under this new plan, J.B. Hunt paid its drivers as follows:
  1. Drivers received hourly pay for all hours worked from the start of the day to the end of the day.
    • This included time spent on pre-route and post-route paperwork and inspections, fueling, and trainings.
  2. On top of hourly pay, employees were paid an “activity-based bonus amount” for other work that they performed.
    • This bonus was for things like stops, detentions, and loading and unloading. 
However, J.B. Hunt’s driver guidelines explained that its “activity-based bonus amount” was calculated by subtracting hourly pay from total eligible activity pay, as follows:
Total Eligible Activities – Hourly Pay = Activity-Based Bonus Amount
Furthermore, if the hourly pay was higher than the activity-based bonus, then J.B. Hunt only paid the employee their hourly pay. It did not pay any additional bonus for that pay period.
 
The Plaintiffs argued that this was an unlawful piece-rate payment scheme. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, reasoning that Section 226.2 did not prohibit employers  paying an hourly wage of at least the minimum wage and then adding bonus pay based on a formula that considers hours worked. The Ninth Circuit further distinguished J.B. Hunt’s payment scheme from cases in which employers had borrowed “compensation contractually due for one set of hours and spread it over other, otherwise un- or undercompensated, hours to satisfy the minimum wage.”

2. Truck Drivers and Off-The-Clock Work

The Ninth Circuit also rejected the Plaintiffs argument that J.B. Hunt had failed to pay them for off-the-clock work that occurred pre- or post-shift. Under well-established California law, “[a] plaintiff may establish liability for an off-the-clock claim by proving that (1) he performed work for which he did not receive compensation; (2) that defendants knew or should have known that plaintiff did so; but that (3) the defendants stood idly by.” Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2014) 765 F.3d 1161, 1165.
 
Here, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Plaintiffs had not presented any evidence as to the second element: whether J.B. Hunt knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were performing off-the-clock work. The court distinguished this case from cases in which employers closely tracked their employees hours and therefore should have known about off-the-clock work.
The court also emphasized that the standard under California law is whether the defendant knew or should have known that a plaintiff performed off-the-clock work, not whether a defendant could have known that such work was occurring. 

3. Truck Drivers and Wage Statements

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Plaintiffs’ wage statements claim under Labor Code section 226(a). The court noted that to prevail on a claim for statutory penalties under Labor Code section 226(e), a plaintiff must show (1) a violation of section 226(a), (2) that was “knowing and intentional,” and (3) that caused a resulting injury. However, to prevail on a PAGA claim for violations of Section 226(a), a plaintiff does not have to satisfy the knowledge and injury requirements for a claim. 
 
Here, Plaintiffs’ claims were brought under Section 226(e). However, they had not shown that any wage statement violations as to total hours worked were “knowing and intentional.”

4. Truck Drivers and Cell Phones

The final substantive issue addressed by the Ninth Circuit was the Plaintiffs’ claim that they had been required to use their cell phones for work, and that J.B. Hunt was therefore required to reimburse them for the costs of those phones under California law. On this claim, the plaintiffs sought to introduce the testimony of other drivers to support their claim. However, the district court barred the plaintiffs from doing so, and the Ninth Circuit found that that was not an abuse of discretion.

The Ninth Circuit also found that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to bar the plaintiffs from mentioning that after it was sued, J.B. Hunt began paying a stipend to its drivers to cover their cell phones. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they were seeking to introduce such evidence to demonstrate “the feasibility of precautionary measures” under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of what jury instruction should have been provided as to the cell phone claim. It agreed with the district court had given the proper instruction:

To establish a claim under California Labor Code § 2802 claim, Plaintiffs must prove (1) that they incurred expenditures in direct consequence of the discharge of their job duties for J.B. Hunt; (2) that the expenditures were reasonable and necessary; (3) that J.B. Hunt failed to reimburse Plaintiffs the full amount of the expenditures; and (4) the amount of the expenditures that J.B. Hunt failed to reimburse Plaintiffs. 

If you are a California truck driver and have questions about your rights, please feel free to contact the attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law, PC. We have represented other drivers in a number of individual and class cases. We can be reached at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com or (510) 444-4400.

Truck Drivers Lose California Meal and Rest Breaks under Federal Court Ruling

Our country’s economy is built on the backs of truck drivers, whose demanding trips keep them on the road and away from their families while allowing Americans to receive goods from across the world in a matter of days. In spite of this service they provide, truck drivers engaged in interstate commerce do not enjoy all of the rights and protections afforded to other workers. For instance, truck drivers are generally not entitled to overtime. And after a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, California truck drivers will now also be denied the meal and rest periods guaranteed to other employees under California law.

 

Meal and Rest Breaks: Federal Law v. California Law

 

In 2011, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) revised its federal hours-of-service regulations to require most drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles working more than eight hours to take one 30-minute break during the first eight hours of a shift. Drivers had flexibility, though, in determining when that break would occur.

 

These federal regulations were far less generous to drivers than California law, which provides for multiple meal and rest periods each shift, and which penalizes employers who fail to provide these shifts to their employees.

 

California’s Wage Order 9-2001, which applies to “all persons employed in the transportation industry,” guarantees employees working than five hours a day a “meal period of not less than 30 minutes.” Employees are entitled to a second meal break of not less than 30 minutes when working more than 10 hours in a day.

 

Wage Order 9-2001 also guarantees California transportation industry employees to 10-minute rest breaks for every four hours worked throughout the day. “[I]nsofar as practicable [these breaks] shall be in the middle of each work period.”

 

Finally, employers who fail to provide a meal or rest break must pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each day the meal or rest period is not provided.

 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v FMCSA

In 2018, at the behest of trucking industry groups, the FMCSA considered whether California’s meal and rest break laws were preempted by the FMCSA’s federal hours-of-service regulations. The FMCSA had previously determined in 2008 that they were not.

 

This time, however, the agency concluded that federal law preempted California’s meal and rest break laws. The FMCSA determined that because the California rules generally required employers to grant commercial truck drivers more breaks, at greater frequency, they were more stringent than federal law and “caused an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.” The California Labor Commissioner challenged this determination.

 

On January 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit upheld the FMCSA’s determination that California’s meal and rest break laws were preempted by the federal hours-of-service regulations. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, — F.3d —- , 2021 WL 139728 (9th Cir. 2021).

 

The Ninth Circuit determined the FMCSA had express authority from Congress to make preemption determinations and that its decision was not arbitrary and capricious. The Court pointed to a factual record that showed that the California rules negatively impacted the efficient operation of interstate logistics and resulted in lost productivity.

 

Takeaway

As a result of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785, truck drivers are unable to enjoy the same meal and rest break protections that California law affords to other employees.

 

This is a blow to truck drivers everywhere, since, as the Ninth Circuit noted, 50% of the nation’s total container-cargo volume enter this country through California’s three major ports. However, drivers should keep on eye on the FMCSA during the Biden administration, as it’s possible the agency may choose to revisit its decision on California meal and rest breaks.