Sobrinio v. Med Ctr Visitor's

Filing 920070104

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk January 4, 2007

06-20671

GREGORIO CHAVEZ SOBRINIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL CENTER VISITOR'S LODGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gregorio Chavez Sobrinio brought this suit against his former employer, Medical Center Visitor's Lodge ("MCVL"). He complains

that he was paid below the minimum wage and was not properly compensated for overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19.

While MCVL disputes the substantive charges, the threshold question is whether Sobrinio is covered by the FLSA through his employment with MCVL. Sobrinio argues that he is entitled to the

FLSA's protections because he was "engaged in interstate commerce"

when performing his job duties.

29 U.S.C. § 207(a).

The district

court disagreed and granted MCVL's motion for summary judgment, finding that Sobrinio was not covered by the FLSA. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Fiesel v. Cherry, 294 F.3d 664, 667 (5th Cir. 2002).

Sobrinio's sole challenge is to the district court's finding that he was not "engaged in commerce" under the FLSA. This leaves

Sobrinio with a relatively difficult argument under the FLSA, as "[t]he test of whether one is in commerce is obviously more exacting than the test of whether his occupation is necessary to production for commerce." 131 (1944). Sobrinio was a full-time employee of MCVL. MCVL is an 18-room motel that houses patients (and their families) seeking treatment at the Texas Medical Center in Houston. variety of services. Sobrinio provided a Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126,

He acted as a janitor, security guard and a

driver for the motel's guests, who were often from out of town. Importantly, Sobrinio only drove the guests to and from the Texas Medical Center and nearby stores; he did not drive them to or from any airport or other interstate transportation center. See

Marshall v. Victoria Transp. Co., Inc., 603 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1979); Airlines Transp., Inc. v. Tobin, 198 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1952). To determine whether these activities amount to Sobrinio being

2

personally engaged in interstate commerce, we apply a practical test. "The test is whether the work is so directly and vitally

related to the functioning of an instrumentality or facility of interstate commerce as to be, in practical effect, a part of it, rather than isolated local activity." Mitchell v. H.B. Zachry Co., 362 U.S. 310, 324 (1960) (citation omitted). minimis requirement. There is no de

"[A]ny regular contact with commerce, no Marshall, 603 F.2d at

matter how small, will result in coverage."

1124. It is Sobrinio's burden to prove that the FLSA applies to him. Warren Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 317 U.S. 88, 90 (1942). Given the facts that Sobrinio alleges, we agree with the district court that his activities are purely local in nature and fall outside the FLSA's protections. Sobrinio draws attention to

his activity transporting out-of-state patrons, pointing to cases finding that transporters are covered by the FLSA. See, e.g.,

Marshall, 603 F.2d 1122 (bus operators that transport passengers to international transportation points covered); Airlines, 198 F.2d 249 (limousine drivers contracted exclusively to take passengers to and from airport covered). But employees Sobrinio relies on cases, to unlike and his, that involve and

transporting

travelers

from

interstate

international transportation points. Those cases might control if Sobrinio transported motel patrons to and from the airport in Houston, for instance, but he makes no such allegation. 3

This Court has found employees engaged in commerce when "their work was entwined with a continuous stream of [interstate] travel." Marshall, 603 F.2d at 1125 (emphasis added). Sobrinio's driving

activities cannot be viewed as part of a constant stream of interstate travel, since his passengers were not in the midst of such travel. Their interstate travel terminated when they first

reached the MCVL and did not start again until they ultimately departed. That many of the motel guests were out-of-state does not alter the local quality of Sobrinio's work. His activities took place

outside the stream of travel, after MCVL guests arrived from outof-state and before they began their departure journeys. description amounts to nothing more than providing His job local

transportation for motel patrons. Sobrinio fails to satisfy his burden of showing that he was engaged in interstate commerce, and he therefore is not entitled to the FLSA's protections based on the facts alleged. Accordingly, we agree with the district court and AFFIRM its judgment.

4