Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Livestock Trucking Company Violated
Child Labor Laws

Kaleb K. Hennigh
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Lynnville Transport, Inc. v. Chao, 316 F.Supp.2d 790 (Iowa 2004), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa held that a livestock trucking company violated child labor laws when minors employed at the company used a skid loader to move some of the company's truck trailers.

Background

Plaintiff Lynnville Transport, Inc. (Lynnville) was a family-owned livestock trucking corporation engaged in the business of transporting livestock throughout the United States. See id. at 793. Lynnville hired minors between the ages of thirteen and sixteen to clean its livestock trailers. See id. The minors operated a skid loader to move the trailers so that they could be cleaned. See id.

During an investigation of Lynnville's premises in January of 1998, an investigator with the Department of Labor (DOL) learned of the minors' employment and determined that they were "illegally employed in an occupation involved in interstate transport." See id. The minors' operation of the skid loader was deemed to be a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 570.58, which in addition to listing the operation of a "hoist or high-lift truck" as a "particularly hazardous" occupation, provides in relevant part the following:

The term hoist shall mean a power-driven apparatus for raising or lowering a load by the application of a pulling force . . . . The term high-lift truck shall mean a power-driven industrial type of truck used for lateral transportation that is equipped with a power-operated lifting device usually in the form of a fork or platform capable of tiering loaded pallets . . . . The term shall . . . not mean low-lift trucks or low-lift platform trucks that are designed for the transportation of but not the tiering of material.

Id. at 799 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 570.58). The DOL classified a skid loader as either a hoist or a high-lift truck under § 570.58(a).

The DOL issued a "Notice of Administrative Decision" informing Lynnville of its violations and assessed a monetary civil penalty for the violations. See id. at 794. Lynnville appealed the DOL decision through the DOL administrative appeals process and the administrative review board affirmed the DOL's determination. See id. at 795. Lynnville appealed the decision to federal district court.

Arguments

Lynnville argued that the DOL erroneously interpreted § 570.58 to apply to the minors' use of the skid loader, reasoning that the capacity of the loader to "hoist or high lift" was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 570.58. See id. at 795. Lynnville also argued that the DOL abused its discretion through its penalty assessment. The DOL claimed its interpretation of the statute was proper and sought an affirmation of its determination. See id. at 800.

Analysis and Holding

The district court concluded that the DOL's determination was "supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion." Id. at 809. It stated that

Under section 570.58, "operating" a high-lift truck is prohibited. A "high-lift truck" is defined by the regulation as a certain type of vehicle "equipped with a power-operated lifting device." Moreover, the definition merely states a high-lift truck is one that is "capable of tiering loaded pallets or skids one above the other." There is nothing within the definition related to actual application or operation of that capability. The regulation addresses a potential for harm. It is inescapable that the express definition strictly interpreted according to the plain language prohibits the employment of minor employees in tasks involving the operation of a truck with the listed capabilities, regardless of whether those capabilities are in fact utilized. The Court must conclude the . . . [DOL] was correct in its determination that it is the use of the skid loader that violates the regulation, and not the actual use of the apparatus that brings the skid loader under the definition of hoist or high-lift truck.

Id. at 801.

The court further held the assessed penalty was not an abuse of discretion and was "not unwarranted in law or unjustified by the facts." See id. at 804. The court reasoned that although the regulation did not require a penalty be assessed, there was "no legal authority for the contention that penalties [were] not allowed," and that the DOL had properly made the penalty assessment determination. See id.

The case was decided on April 15, 2004; this summary was posted Jan. 6, 2005.