it clearly views meal expenses incurred while temporarily working away from home as distinct from those incurred while working at a permanent location and acknowledges'that expenses incurred while temporarily away from home are for the benefit of the employer. Plaintiffs’ argument that meal expenses are always incurred for the benefit of the employee fails to consider this critical distinction. See Dkt. #'87, at 17. Based on the foregoing case law and DOL guidance, the Court concludes that defendant properly excluded the “hot shot” payments from the regular rate calculation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(2). Plaintiffs were traveling away from home and performing, work for defendant. Their meal expenses were thus incurred on behalf of the defendant and in furtherance (1st Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Carpenters
recognizing limits on the erisa preemption clause holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists holding that a party did not waive its preemption defense where its answer did not specifically mention preemption but contained a broader defense that was capable of encompassing preemption recognizing that federal preemption is affirmative defense as to which defendant has burden of proof holding that  502a may serve as an independent basis for preemption where  514a the blanket erisa preemption provision is inapplicable