[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 6, 2011
No. 11-11366
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:09-cv-01691-LSC
MILTON ALFRED LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ESKRIDGE TRUCKING CO., INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(October 6, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Milton Lewis appeals the summary judgment in favor of Eskridge Trucking
Co., Inc., and against Lewis’s complaint for unpaid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The district court ruled
that Lewis was exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. We affirm.
An employee is exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act if he is subject to the rules promulgated by the Secretary of
Transportation under the Motor Carriers Act. Spires v. Ben Hill Cnty., 980 F.2d
683, 686 (11th Cir. 1993). The Secretary regulates employees who work for a
private motor carrier that provides transportation in interstate commerce and
whose work activities affect the “safety of operation” of that motor carrier, 29
C.F.R. § 782.2, including truck drivers, mechanics, loaders, and helpers, Levinson
v. Spector Motor Serv., 330 U.S. 649, 673, 67 S. Ct. 931, 943 (1947). The
employee need not devote all or even a majority of his time to safety activities, id.
at 674, 67 S. Ct. at 944; it is enough that a “loader” devote a “substantial part” of
his time to “activities affecting safety of operation,” id. at 681, 67 S. Ct. at 947.
Lewis is a “loader” who is subject to regulation under the Motor Carrier Act
and exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A
“loader” is an employee of a carrier “whose duties include . . . the proper loading
2
of . . . motor vehicles so that they may be safely operated on the highways” and
who “exercis[es] judgment and discretion in planning and building a balanced load
or in placing, distributing, or securing the pieces of freight in such a manner that
the safe operation of the vehicles on the highways in interstate or foreign
commerce will not be jeopardized.” 29 C.F.R. § 782.5(a). Lewis testified that he
was a “loader” for Eskridge Trucking who was unsupervised as he filled trailers
with wood shavings and ensured that the loads were balanced, weighed the
trailers, and inspected the trailers for maintenance problems.
Lewis includes, in his statement of the issues, an argument that he was not
compensated for the time while he was on call for Eskridge Trucking, but he does
not include any argument in his brief about this issue. “‘The law is by now well
settled in this Circuit that a legal claim or argument that has not been briefed
before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.’”
Tanner Adver. Group, LLC v. Fayette Cnty., Ga., 451 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir.
2006) (quoting Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th
Cir. 2004)).
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Eskridge Trucking.
3