C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO REGULATIONS › PART 782—EXEMPTION FROM MAXIMUM HOURS PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS

29 C.F.R. § 782.4

Drivers' helpers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A Driver's “helper,” as defined for Motor Carrier Act jurisdiction (Ex Parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 135, 136, 138, 139), is an employee other than a driver, who is required to ride on a motor vehicle when it is being operated in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act. (The term does not include employees who ride on the vehicle and act as assistants or relief drivers. Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, supra. See § 782.3.) This definition has classified all such employees, including armed guards on armored trucks and conductorettes on buses, as “helpers” with respect to whom he has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service because of their engagement in some or all of the following activities which, in his opinion, directly affect the safety of operation of such motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce (Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, 135-136): Assist in loading the vehicles (they may also assist in unloading (Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, supra), an activity which has been held not to affect “safety of operation,” see § 782.5(c); as to what it meant by “loading” which directly affects “safety of operation,” see § 782.5(a)); dismount when the vehicle approaches a railroad crossing and flag the driver across the tracks, and perform a similar duty when the vehicle is being turned around on a busy highway or when it is entering or emerging from a driveway; in case of a breakdown: (1) Place the flags, flares, and fuses as required by the safety regulations. (2) go for assistance while the driver protects the vehicle on the highway, or vice versa, or (3) assist the driver in changing tires or making minor repairs; and assist in putting on or removing chains.

(b) An employee may be a “helper” under the official definition even though such safety-affecting activities constitute but a minor part of his job. Thus, although the primary duty of armed guards on armored trucks is to protect the valuables in the case of attempted robberies, they are classified as “helpers” where they ride on such trucks being operated in interstate or foreign commerce, because, in the case of an accident or other emergency and in other respects, they act in a capacity somewhat similar to that of the helpers described in the text. Similarly, conductorettes on buses whose primary duties are to see to the comfort of the passengers are classified as “helpers” whose such buses are being operated in interstate or foreign commerce, because in instances when accidents occur, they help the driver in obtaining aid and protect the vehicle from oncoming traffic.

(c) In accordance with principles previously stated (see § 782.2), the section 13(b)(1) exemption applies to employees who are, under the Secretary of Transporation's definitions, engaged in such activities as full- or partial-duty “helpers” on motor vehicles being operated in transporation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act. (Ispass v. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp., 152 F. (2d) 619 (C.A. 2); Walling v. McGinley Co. (E.D. Tenn.), 12 Labor Cases, par. 63,731, 6 W.H. Cases 916. See also Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.S. 649; Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695; Dallum v. Farmers, Coop Trucking Assn. 46 F. Supp. 785 (D. Minn.).) The exemption has been held inapplicable to so-called helpers who ride on motor vehicles but do not engage in any of the activities of “helpers” which have been found to affect directly the safety of operation of such vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce. (Walling v. Gordon's Transports (W.D. Tenn.) 10 Labor Cases par. 62,934, 6 W.H. Cases 831, affirmed 162 F. (2d) 203 (C.A. 6), certiorari denied, 332 U.S. 774 (helpers on city “pickup and delivery trucks” where it was not shown that the loading in any manner affected safety of operation and the helper's activities were “in no manner similar” to those of a driver's helper in over-the-road operation).) It should be noted also that an employee, to be exempted as a driver's “helper” under the Secretary's definitions, must be “required” as part of his job to ride on a motor vehicle when it is being operated in interstate or foreign commerce; an employee of a motor carrier is not exempted as a “helper” when he rides on such a vehicle, not as a matter of fixed duty, but merely as a convenient means of getting himself to, from, or between places where he performs his assigned work. (See Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695, modifying, on other grounds, 152 F. (2d) 619 (C.A. 2).)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 846 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 846 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D. Tex. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 . This definition includes all employees who: (a) “Assist in loading the vehicles (they may also assist in unloading), an activity which has been held not to affect ‘safety of operation’ (b) “dismount when the vehicle approaches a railroad crossing and flag…”
McLeland v. 1845 Oil Field Servs., 97 F. Supp. 3d 855 (W.D. Tex. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 (providing a driver’s helper “is an employee other than a driver, who is required to ride .”
Abelardo Baez, Angel Baez v. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp., a Corp. Doing Bus. in the State of Florida, 938 F.2d 180 (11th Cir. 1991). “The same conclusion now appears in a regulation to which we owe deference, 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 . See Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 330 U.”
Overnite Transp. Co. v. Betty L. Tianti, Comm'r of Labor of the State of Connecticut, 926 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1991). “This legislative history amply supports the district court’s conclusion that § 31—76i does not equate “loaders” with “helpers” (as defined in WHA § 31-76c) or “driver’s helpers” (as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 ), and does not exempt loaders from the overtime wage benefits of §…”
Rojas v. Garda CL Se., Inc., 297 F.R.D. 669 (S.D. Fla. 2013). “2d at 43 ); see also 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 (a). This Court recognizes that the class of employees that Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify here share many similarities with the class of employees that the Baez Court found to be exempt from the FLSA.”
Smith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 890 F. Supp. 523 (S.D.W. Va 1995). “3 ); (2) “Drivers’ helpers” ( 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 ); (3) “Loaders” ( 29 C.”
Cantu v. Brink's Co., 186 F. Supp. 3d 846 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “Hernandez, 2009 WL 113406 , at *4 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 and concluding that a messenger falls within the motor-carrier exemption).”
Billingslea v. S. Freight, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2010). “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 (a). Nothing in the record indicates that, while employed as a yard hostler, Defendant required Plaintiff to ride on any vehicles that were operated in interstate or foreign commerce as defined by the MCA.”
Vallejo v. Garda CL Sw., Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 862 (S.D. Tex. 2014). “” 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 (a). The regulation (to which this court owes deference) specifically includes “armed guards on armored trucks” as an example of a covered driver’s helper.”
Gomez v. Epic Landscape Prods., L.C. (D. Kan. 2025). · cites it 2× “68 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 (a). 69 Id. 70 Id. § 782.”
Combs v. Jaguar Energy Servs., LLC, 187 F. Supp. 3d 1258 (D. Colo. 2016). “§ 782 ,5 (definition of “loader”), and also required him "to ride on a motor véhiele when it is being operated in interstate or foreign commerce,” 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 (a) (definition of “drivér’s helper”).”
Crum v. Forward Air Solutions Inc (N.D. Ala. 2023). “4 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 ). For the proposition that it owed deference to the DOL regulation, the Court of Appeals cited a page in Levinson in which the Supreme Court discussed the deference that it gave to ICC conclusions of law with respect to ICC jurisdiction.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 782.4(a) — 1 case
Gomez v. Epic Landscape Prods., L.C. (D. Kan. 2025). “68 29 C.F.R. § 782.4 (a). 69 Id. 70 Id. § 782.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.