Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—M.D. Tenn.: Tennessee federal court grants summary judgment for employer on truck driver’s claims, (May 18, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

He failed to produce sufficient evidence of unpaid overtime or retaliatory conduct.

A Tennessee federal district court granted summary judgment for an employer in a dispute under the FLSA concerning overtime compensation and alleged retaliation. The employee, a truck driver working on interstate highway construction projects, claimed that the employer failed to properly compensate him for overtime work and later retaliated against him after he raised wage-related concerns. The court held that the Motor Carrier Act exemption applied to the employee’s work, thereby exempting the company from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The court also found that the employee failed to produce sufficient evidence of unpaid overtime or retaliatory conduct (Smith v. ABDECO, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-0003 (M.D. Tenn. May 14, 2026)).

Truck driver. The employee worked as a truck driver for an interstate motor carrier that contracted with prime contractors to provide transportation services for federal interstate infrastructure projects. Although the employee primarily worked within Tennessee, the employer regularly dispatched drivers across state lines depending on project needs, its business operations involved transporting materials originating outside Tennessee, and drivers could be reassigned to out-of-state jobs at any time. As part of his employment onboarding, the employee signed documentation acknowledging that the employer operated in multiple states and that employees could be assigned to any project location, along with a pay policy explaining that compensation would be based upon billable time reflected on daily time tickets.

GPS tracking. The employer maintained GPS tracking systems on company trucks, which recorded ignition times, movement, arrival times, and departures. According to company records, the employee received compensation for more than 523 hours of work, including over 50 hours of overtime pay, which meant he was paid for more time than his truck was in operation.

Truck accident. The employee was subsequently involved in a truck accident while attempting to dump dirt and rock from the vehicle. Shortly before the accident, the employee had been using his cell phone, and he also failed to exit the truck to inspect whether the ground surface was level before unloading. The truck tipped over, allegedly causing substantial property damage. The date of the accident was his last day of productive work at ADEBCO.

Lawsuit. The employee filed suit for FLSA violations and retaliation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division. The employer asserted counterclaims related to wage theft and poor job performance, and filed a motion for summary judgment on the employee’s claims.

MCA exemption. The court first concluded that the employee reasonably could have been expected to participate in interstate commerce, bringing him within the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption and eliminating his overtime claim under the FLSA. Employees engaged in interstate commerce, or those who could reasonably be expected to engage in interstate transportation activities fall within the exemption, and the court explained that although the employee himself had not personally crossed state lines, the employer routinely reassigned drivers between projects in multiple states, and the employee had acknowledged he could be dispatched anywhere work was available.

No valid overtime claim. Furthermore, the court held that, even if the exemption did not apply, the employee still failed to establish a valid overtime claim, as under the FLSA, an employee bears the burden of proving that uncompensated overtime work occurred. The court found that the employee admitted receiving overtime compensation and failed to provide specific evidence showing additional unpaid hours. General allegations of unpaid overtime, without detailed proof of uncompensated work, were insufficient to survive summary judgment.

Retaliation. Finally, the court addressed the retaliation claim using the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. Even assuming the employee established a prima facie retaliation case, the employer articulated legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions, including alleged safety violations, misuse of a cell phone on the job site, and the serious truck accident that resulted in major property damage. The court found that the employee failed to produce sufficient evidence showing these explanations were merely pretext for retaliation. Although the employee pointed to other drivers who caused property damage but were not sued, the court determined that he failed to adequately demonstrate that those situations were sufficiently similar to his own. Accordingly, the retaliation claim also failed as a matter of law.

The case is No. 2:20-cv-0003.

Judge: Crenshaw, W.

Attorneys: Randall W. Burton (Law Office of Randall W. Burton) for Martreese Smith. Autumn Gentry (Dickinson Wright) for ADEBCO, Inc. and Debra Young.

Companies: ADEBCO, Inc.

Cases: WageHour Overtime Exemptions Retaliation TennesseeNews