A Win for Delivery Drivers in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Alaska: Employer Approximations Aren’t Enough
On November 5, 2026, Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah denied an attempt by a Pizza Hut franchisee to end a delivery driver’s minimum wage claims before the drivers could obtain the records they had requested. The case is Brandi-Vanmeter v. MP2 Enterprises, LLC, No. 4:23-cv-00081-DN-PK.
The employer argued that it should be able to approximate its employees’ expenses and that it didn’t have to keep records showing how the approximation was reached. The court pointed to recent authority holding that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to reimburse drivers’ actual vehicle costs, calculated “to the penny,” rather than a “reasonable approximation.” The court also reaffirmed that the duty to keep accurate mileage and expense records belongs to the employer, not the drivers.
The Case
The lawsuit was filed in September 2023 on behalf of delivery drivers who worked at Pizza Hut franchise stores owned or operated by the defendants. The drivers use their own cars to deliver pizzas. They allege the company systematically under-reimbursed them for those vehicle expenses, pushing their effective wages below the legal minimum wage.
The parties stipulated early on to conditional certification of the FLSA collective, and more than 150 delivery drivers have since joined the case. In November 2025, the court also certified a class for the drivers’ state law claims.
Biller & Kimble, LLC represents the plaintiffs.
Withhold the Records, Then Use Them
The drivers served discovery asking for the basics: driver lists, hours, wages, reimbursement payments, deliveries and addresses, miles driven, and the company’s reimbursement policies. The defendants gave no substantive answers. Instead, they objected across the board and said discovery should wait until the court ruled on class certification.
Then, without waiting for that ruling, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment against the lead plaintiff’s individual FLSA claims. To support the motion, they attached some of the very records they had refused to produce, including redacted pay statements and dispatch reports, along with an owner’s declaration stating that the lead plaintiff drove 6,736.1 miles during her employment.
The heart of the defense was an “averaged” daily reimbursement rate. Using that average, the defendants argued that the driver’s pay, net of vehicle costs, still cleared the minimum wage. But they never attempted to track their drivers’ actual vehicle costs.
The drivers asked the court to deny or defer the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) until they could obtain discovery. They supported the request with sworn declarations from the lead plaintiff and four other drivers, as well as a denied insurance claim from a work-related accident.
The Court’s Ruling: Actual Costs, “To the Penny”
The court granted the drivers’ Rule 56(d) motion and denied the summary judgment motion without prejudice. It found that the facts the drivers need are in the defendants’ exclusive control, and that the drivers had diligently tried to get them. The defendants had not produced complete, unredacted mileage records, and had not explained how they arrived at their mileage totals.
Most significantly, the court explained why the defendants’ averaged reimbursement rate could not carry the day, citing the Department of Labor’s regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35, and West v. BAM! Pizza Management, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (D.N.M. 2026).
The court then turned to the approximation question. Citing the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Parker v. Battle Creek Pizza, Inc., 95 F.4th 1009 (6th Cir. 2024), and West, the court explained that recent persuasive authority rejects the theory that employers may pay a “reasonable approximation” of vehicle expenses. Instead, the FLSA requires reimbursement of actual costs calculated “to the penny.”
As the court wrote:
“Defendants’ PSJ Motion relies on an ‘averaged’ daily reimbursement rate to argue that Plaintiff’s net compensation satisfies FLSA minimum wage requirements. However, under FLSA principles, an employer must fully reimburse an employee for required ‘tools of the trade’ (such as personal delivery vehicles) so that wages are paid ‘free and clear.’ And recent persuasive authority rejects the theory that employers may pay a ‘reasonable approximation’ of vehicle expenses, holding instead that the FLSA requires reimbursement of actual costs calculated ‘to the penny.’ An employer also cannot shift its statutory duty to maintain accurate expense and mileage records onto its employees. Therefore, access to Defendants’ unredacted delivery address databases, daily delivery logs, and internal mileage software will enable Plaintiff to calculate actual delivery miles, evaluate daily vehicle expenses, and attempt to establish her FLSA claims.”
Why This Matters Outside the Sixth Circuit
Parker is binding in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. Utah sits in the Tenth Circuit, where Parker is persuasive only. The court’s reliance on Parker and West shows the actual-cost standard taking hold beyond the Sixth Circuit and gives drivers in Tenth Circuit states another decision to point to.
Summary of Key Points
- Averages aren’t enough. An employer’s averaged or estimated reimbursement rate does not end the inquiry. The question is whether drivers were reimbursed for their actual vehicle costs.
- The records are the employer’s job. Employers must keep accurate mileage and expense records. They cannot fault drivers for not keeping those records themselves.
- Employers can’t play keep-away with evidence. A company that refuses to produce records in discovery should not expect to win summary judgment by selectively using those same records.
What’s Next
The case now moves forward into full discovery. The defendants may refile their summary judgment motion, if appropriate, no sooner than 30 days after fact discovery closes.
If you deliver pizza or food in your own car and believe your reimbursement doesn’t cover your real costs, contact Biller & Kimble for a free consultation.
This post discusses a court order in a pending case and is for general information only. It is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.