Co-authored by David D. Kadue and Rocio Herrera

Seyfarth Synopsis: A California appellate court has held that unless a collective bargaining agreement includes an explicitly stated, clear, and unmistakable intent to waive the right to a judicial forum for statutory claims, arbitration of those claims will not be compelled. The CBA in the case, Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, did not waive the right to a judicial forum because its “Grievance and Arbitration” section failed to specify the California Labor Code provisions that would have to be arbitrated.

The Facts

Tanya Vasserman, a registered nurse, worked for Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, under a CBA between the Hospital and the California Nurses Association. The CBA’s “Grievance and Arbitration” section provided for grievances culminating in arbitration, and defined a grievance as any dispute “arising out of the interpretation or application of a specific Article and Section of this Agreement during the term of the Agreement … as to events or incidents arising only at the Hospital.” The CBA outlined a three-step grievance procedure. Step three required the Hospital or the California Nurses Association to “file the grievance for binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.” The CBA included articles on compensation, including overtime, and meal and rest periods. None of these articles referred to the grievance procedure or to remedies for violations.

Instead of filing a grievance, Vasserman sued in state court for violation of the California Labor Code, including claims for a failure to pay all regular and overtime wages and a failure to provide meal and rest breaks. The Hospital moved to stay the case and compel arbitration. The Hospital argued that Vasserman and the other employees she sought to represent in her putative class action were all covered by a CBA that included a Grievance and Arbitration section that clearly required the Hospital or the union to file a grievance for mandatory arbitration at step three. The Hospital argued that the grievance procedure explicitly waived the right to pursue claims in a judicial forum and Vasserman had to arbitrate her claims. The trial court denied the Hospital’s motion to compel arbitration, and the Hospital appealed to the California Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. It found that the Grievance and Arbitration section defined a grievance as “any complaint or dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of a specific Article or Section of this Agreement.” The section also described a three-step grievance procedure, including step three in which any unresolved grievances may be submitted to arbitration. But it also limited the power of the arbitrator. The section provided that the arbitrator “shall be without authority to decide matters specifically excluded or not included in this Agreement.”

The court held that because the Grievance and Arbitration section did not specifically refer to the California Labor Code or other state or federal statutes, or include any language suggesting that the union intended to waive employees’ rights to bring statutory claims in court, the CBA contained no explicitly stated, clear, and unmistakable waiver of a judicial forum.

The court also rejected the Hospital’s argument that the parties, by including specific articles on pay and meal and rest breaks in the CBA, clearly and unmistakably intended to submit all disputes regarding those subjects to the grievance or arbitration process. The articles on pay and meal breaks did not refer to state laws. A waiver cannot be inferred from “broad, nonspecific language … not coupled with an explicit incorporation of statutory requirements.”

What Vasserman Means for Employers

We are reminded that to preclude judicial litigation of statutory rights, CBAs should specify any statutory rights that will be subject to grievance and arbitration procedures. These grievance procedures should also be incorporated by reference in any other section of the CBA discussing statutory rights, to ensure that the parties clearly and unmistakably state their intent to submit all disputes regarding those subjects to the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the CBA.

Authored by Simon L. Yang

Seyfarth Synopsis: Sometimes, plaintiffs’ attorneys have circumvented a key aspect of the California Legislature’s intent in enacting PAGA: limiting standing to pursue penalties for Labor Code violations to those employees who were actually harmed. Though a new California bill could halt those attempts, PAGA plaintiffs’ wiliness warrants a cautionary comment to the Legislature to ensure that any amendment furthers—rather than further frustrates—the original legislative intent.

A New PAGA Bill: Employers should be optimistic that the California Legislature continues to propose bills seeking to curtail PAGA abuse. One recently introduced bill would advance three laudable goals, to close loopholes and preclude arguments that have encouraged absurd interpretations of the original PAGA statute. But the Legislature should mindfully proceed. While one proposed change is straightforward, a second creates confusion absent a quick fix, and a third requires revisiting PAGA’s legislative intent to consider what amendment would be best.

Extension of Time for Employers to Exercise Right to Cure Violations: The first part of the pending bill proposes a clearly needed fix of an oversight within the 2016 amendment. As previously noted, 2016 legislation provided the LWDA with more time to respond to PAGA letters, but failed to also extend the employer’s time to respond. The pending bill would provide employers with 65 days to cure certain Labor Code violations.

Expansion of Scope of Violations Subject to Right to Cure: The proposed bill would also broaden the availability of the right to cure. Currently, many violations are specifically excluded from the cure provisions. According to the bill, an amendment would “exclude only the health and safety violations from the right to cure provisions.” The proposed text within the bill, however, falls short and would create confusion.

A quick fix is all that would be needed, though. To achieve the declared intent, the proposed amendments within Labor Code section 2699.3(c) (providing procedures for curable violations) should be accompanied with deletion of section 2699.3(a), which currently provides procedures lacking any right to cure but applying to some of the Labor Code violations the bill intends to make curable.

Reemphasis on PAGA’s Standing Requirement: The third proposal is the most interesting. The bill’s suggested amendment would reemphasize that “an aggrieved employee may be awarded civil penalties based only upon a violation by the employer actually suffered by that employee.”

At first glance, the proposal restates a given, but it likely responds to some plaintiffs’ efforts to obliterate PAGA’s standing requirement. These plaintiffs have misled courts into believing that an employee aggrieved by one Labor Code violation can invoke PAGA to seek penalties for other violations that the employee never experienced.

That isn’t right. Even PAGA’s initial proponents, in 2003, explained that a standing requirement meant that a PAGA plaintiff could only be someone who had been subjected to the Labor Code violation for which that plaintiff sought to recover penalties:

Only Persons Who Have Actually Been Harmed May Bring An Action to Enforce The Civil Penalties. Mindful of the recent, well-publicized allegations of private plaintiff abuse of [California’s unfair competition law (the “UCL”)], the sponsors state that they have attempted to craft a private right of action that will not be subject to such abuse. Unlike the UCL, this bill would not permit private actions by persons who suffered no harm from the alleged wrongful act. Instead, private suits for Labor Code violations could be brought only by an employee or former employee of the alleged violator against whom the alleged violation was committed. This action could also include fellow employees also harmed by the alleged violation.

The legislative history is consistent throughout, and the final bill analysis preceding PAGA’s enactment maintained that PAGA plaintiffs must have suffered harm from an alleged violation. Those individuals could seek penalties on behalf of “other current or former employees against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” Simply put, someone who was aggrieved by certain Labor Code violations could be a PAGA plaintiff and could sue on behalf of others who also were subject to any of those violations.

But PAGA plaintiffs argue that the enacted statute is contrary. They seize upon PAGA’s definition of an “aggrieved employee,” which they read to comingle concepts. Specifically, they argue that PAGA confers standing not only on those plaintiffs whom the Legislature intended to have standing to be a PAGA plaintiff (i.e., those “against whom the alleged violation was committed”) but also on those employees on whose behalf the PAGA plaintiff could sue (i.e., those “against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed”).

The result is that absurd arguments abound. For example, some PAGA plaintiffs assert that a non-exempt employee who suffered an expense reimbursement violation can recover penalties on behalf of employees who have been misclassified as exempt!

Two Cents for the Legislature: The proposed amendment—a new Labor Code section 2699.4 establishing that “an aggrieved employee may be awarded civil penalties based only upon a violation by the employer actually suffered by that employee”—is a welcomed attempt to put an end to the silliness. But the proposal restates what was intended to be an evident truth.

Adding a provision to clarify original intent could be argued is unnecessary, especially since the Legislature could simply revisit the definition of an “aggrieved employee.” The definition presently can and should be read without absurdity, but PAGA plaintiffs contort statutory language to assert illogical arguments (like the ability to recover penalties as being irrelevant to standing).

In sum, enacting section 2699.4 to preclude an award of penalties for a violation that a PAGA plaintiff has not suffered merely restates the standing requirement that precludes such an award in the first instance. To the extent the Legislature finds a need to respond to PAGA plaintiffs’ tactics, enacting section 2699.4 might be unnecessarily complicated. A simple amendment to the definition of an aggrieved employee would have the same result.

N.D. CalAuthored by Eric Hill

Seyfarth Synopsis: Airline customer service representative denied pay for pre-employment 10-day classroom training program under the FLSA and California Labor Law.

The maxim “it is extremely difficult to find someone to pay you to learn” has been proven again! This must be why we, or at least most of us, eventually leave school to enter the working world.

Meanwhile, the trend in the law is clear:

  1. Where trainees are truly “learning,” as a precursor to “working,” and are the primary beneficiary of pre-employment training, there is no duty to pay them.
  2. But, where the trainee’s “on the job” training involves performing work an employee would otherwise perform (to the employer’s financial advantage), the trainee must be paid.

In a January 9, 2017 ruling, Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California held that a customer service representative for Hawaiian Airlines was not entitled to be paid during a 10-day pre-employment training program that consisted of classroom work and tours of the facilities rather than actual “on-the job” customer service training. The decision is notable for its practical, straightforward analysis regarding when trainees should be paid under federal and California law.

The Court adopted the “primary beneficiary test,” cautioned against a mechanistic application of the six Department of Labor criteria, and granted Hawaiian Airlines summary judgment. (While the lawsuit is a proposed class action, the parties opted to file cross-motions for summary judgment before litigating the class certification question.)

According to the Court, the key question was whether the airline was taking financial advantage of the trainee during the training program by using her to perform work that an employee would otherwise perform. Because the plaintiff did not perform the work of the customer service employees, the Court found no reasonable juror could conclude she was acting as an “employee” during her training course.

The Court noted the classroom instruction and touring were only precursors to performing the work of an employee. The airline did not receive any direct benefit from the training, which taught trainees about FAA regulations, the computer system, and the way the company operated. Because the airline was not using the trainees as “anything close to employees,” the plaintiff was the “primary beneficiary” of the training.

As is the trend, the Court rejected the argument that a trainee is an employee unless the employer can satisfy all six of the DOL’s criteria. Stating that the six criteria are “relevant but not conclusive,” the Court focused instead on whether the trainee or the employer was the “primary beneficiary” of the training. It warned against “mechanistically applying the six criteria,” and called the case “a good illustration” of why “just about every court” has “rejected the Department of Labor’s approach.”

The Court emphasized that the DOL’s criteria seem to be designed for true “on-the-job” training, whereas the plaintiff here was not involved in this type of training. The Court also pointed out there is no difference between the federal and California legal standards for determining whether a worker qualifies as an “employee” during training.

Despite its warnings about reliance on the six DOL criteria, the Court found that application of the criteria would lead to the same result. The criteria are:

  1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school.
  2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees.
  3. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation.
  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees; and on occasion his operations may actually be impeded.
  5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period.
  6. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent training.

This decision is not the first “training time” case to grant summary judgment to an employer under these circumstances. Despite the positive trend, these cases are highly fact-driven and do not foreclose the possibility that trainees will be deemed to be employees. But they do signal that, where trainees are not performing the work of the employees and are not engaging in traditional work-alongside-the-employees “on the job” training, they do not cross the line from “trainee” to “employee” and need not be paid as a matter of law.

Authored by

Seyfarth Synopsis: In what many employers will see as a “break” from workplace reality, the Supreme Court, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., announced that certain “on call” rest periods do not comply with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders. As previously reported on our California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog, this decision presents significant practical challenges for employers in industries where employees must respond to exigent circumstances.


On December 23, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., affirming a $90 million judgment for the plaintiff class of security guards on their rest break claim. The Supreme Court found that the security guards’ rest breaks did not comply with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, because the guards had to carry radios or pagers during their rest breaks and had to respond if required.

The Supreme Court took a very restrictive view of California’s rest break requirements, concluding that “one cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest breaks.” Thus, in the Supreme Court’s view, an employers may not require employees to remain on call—“at the ready and capable of being summoned to action”—during rest breaks.

See our One Minute Memo for more details on the decision and thoughts on the implications of this case for California employers. The Augustus decision presents significant practical challenges for employers, especially in industries in which employees must be able to respond to exigent circumstances.

Workplace Solution:

The holding that “on call” rest periods are not legally permissible should prompt employers to evaluate their rest-break practices. In industries where employees must remain on call during rest periods, employers should consider seeking an exemption from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Lawyers in the Seyfarth California Workplace Solutions group can assist with other suggestions for responding to this decision.

Authored by Simon L. Yang

Seyfarth Synopsis: When the California Supreme Court said no to PAGA waivers in its 2014 Iskanian ruling, we asked whether employers would boldly go where few have gone before and implement arbitration agreements requiring arbitration of PAGA claims. A recent California Court of Appeal decision issued in Perez v. U-Haul Company of California warrants revisiting that question.

Many employers stayed the course in 2014 and continued including PAGA waivers within their arbitration agreements, since numerous federal district courts continued disagreeing with and refusing to apply Iskanian’s logic.

And even when in 2015 the Ninth Circuit instructed federal district courts to apply Iskanian, many employers continued using arbitration agreements with PAGA waivers, since PAGA litigation could be severed and stayed while a plaintiff’s individual claims were arbitrated. If the employer prevailed on the individual claims in arbitration, the plaintiff would not be an aggrieved employee, would not have standing under PAGA, and would thus be unable to pursue mooted PAGA claims.

By 2016 plaintiffs have made the availability of that option scarcer. To avoid having to prove standing by prevailing on their individual claims before pursuing otherwise stayed PAGA claims, plaintiffs now commonly prefer to file PAGA-only lawsuits, without alleging individual claims.

The two putative Perez class representatives, however, had pursued both individual and PAGA claims. Predicting and seeking to avoid a stay of their PAGA claims, the Perez plaintiffs hopped onto the PAGA-only bandwagon by amending their complaints to allege a PAGA cause of action only—abandoning their individual claims, their roles as potential class representatives, and putative class members’ individual rights.

U-Haul fought back and sought to require arbitration of the predicate issue of whether the plaintiffs themselves had been subject to any Labor Code violations. Even though U-Haul was not seeking to preclude the PAGA cause of action but only to arbitrate the individual issues determinative of plaintiffs’ standing for their PAGA claims, the Court of Appeal rejected U-Haul’s argument. It reasoned that no individual issues remained at issue and that U-Haul’s arbitration agreement explicitly precluded arbitration of any representative issues.

Though Iskanian explicitly acknowledged that PAGA claims might be arbitrated, the Perez court then went full dictum. It opined that even if U-Haul’s arbitration agreement did not preclude its argument for arbitrating the plaintiff-specific issues determinative of PAGA standing, the PAGA cause of action could not be split between arbitration and litigation. But Iskanian doesn’t preclude this. What it precluded was the waiver of the right to pursue PAGA claims at all.

While it may be the case that an arbitration agreement cannot specify that an individual claim be created in a PAGA-only lawsuit, an arbitration agreement should be able to specify that representative claims be arbitrated—and specify that streamlined procedures be applied. Once again, will some enterprising employers consider going boldly where few have gone before?

Authored by Christopher A. Crosman

We are excited to announce the 16th edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s publication Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class ActionsAs in previous editions, this publication reviews the most commonly filed wage and hour and Labor Code class and representative claims and the development of the law over the last several years, and discusses and analyzes the various types of wage & hour class actions that affect many California employers. This new edition has been updated to reflect the latest developments in the law and promises to delight.

Download the publication using this convenient link today!

Co-authored by Monica Rodriguez and Justin Curley

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court holds that employers must promptly pay final wages owed to employees who quit, including those who retire, or risk paying steep statutory penalties under California Labor Code section 203.

What Were the Plaintiff’s Claims?

Janis McLean worked as deputy attorney general for the California Department of Justice. In November 2010, McLean retired and filed suit in an individual and representative capacity against the State of California shortly thereafter. She alleged that the State Controller’s Office failed to pay her final wages on her last day of employment or within 72 hours of her last day after she retired.

What Do California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 Require of Employers?

California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 require employers to pay final wages owed to employees who are fired or quit. Depending on how the employment comes to an end, final wages are due immediately or within 72 hours after the last day of employment. Failure to timely pay final wages subjects employers to penalties of up to 30 days’ wages.

What Did the California Supreme Court Decide?

The California Supreme Court agreed with McLean that the prompt payment provisions of California Labor Code sections 201 and 201 included protections for employees who retire. The State had demurred to the complaint, arguing that because McLean had retired from her job, she had not stated a claim for statutory penalties which applies only when employees “quit” or are “discharged.” While the trial court sustained the demurrer, the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court disagreed.

The California Supreme Court looked to the legislative purpose of the statute and noted that the statute is meant to be “liberally construed with an eye to promoting such protection” of employees. The court also considered the ordinary meaning of the word “quit” to determine whether it encompasses the word “retire,” and concluded that the word “quit” is broad enough to cover a voluntary departure through retirement.

Lessons Learned for Employers?

This decision serves as a reminder to California employers to promptly pay wages owed to their employees after termination, regardless of the method in which the employment ends–through discharge, retirement, or resignation. For those who are interested, a more in-depth review of the case is available here.

Authored by Simon L. Yang

Seyfarth Synopsis: PAGA was amended earlier this week, in connection with the California legislature’s approval of the state’s annual budget. The legislation did not implement any of the more substantive changes that Governor Brown’s proposed budget had previously suggested—e.g., requiring PAGA plaintiffs to provide additional information when submitting pre-filing written notice to the LWDA or permitting the LWDA an opportunity to object to PAGA settlements. While some procedural changes are worth noting, they don’t alleviate any of employers’ main concerns with PAGA.

And that’s to be expected, since the Legislative Analyst’s Office previously recommended rejecting any substantive changes. In its view, such amendments should be considered only after (i) requiring additional information be provided to the LWDA about the actual results of PAGA litigation and (ii) increasing funding to the LWDA so that it could actually fulfill its role in PAGA enforcement. This week’s alterations to PAGA procedure attempt to address these two preliminary objectives.

First, California employees used to be able to threaten employers with the prospect of PAGA litigation for the mere $3 cost of sending a written notice via certified mail. Effective today, hopeful PAGA plaintiffs must now pay a $75 filing fee and submit written notice via online filing. The filing fee and online system aim to assist the LWDA manage its PAGA burdens. But the 25x filing-fee increase likely won’t curb employers’ PAGA burdens, since employees often demand PAGA settlements that are 2,500x greater than even the new filing fee.

Second, courts now have to approve all settlements in PAGA actions—and not just settlements involving PAGA penalties. Contrary to some rumors, the amendments do not provide the LWDA an opportunity to object to PAGA settlements. The amendments do require PAGA plaintiffs to provide the LWDA with copies of any filed PAGA complaint, proposed settlements, and final judgments, but this week’s revisions merely assist the LWDA in being informed of PAGA litigation.

Third, employees also now have to wait 65 (as opposed to 33) days after sending their written notice before filing suit, as the LWDA has 60 (instead of 30) days to potentially respond. Both employees and the LWDA generally do nothing during this period, so employers may be further annoyed that they still have but 33 days to potentially cure certain Labor Code violations.

Still, maybe the LWDA will become more involved in PAGA enforcement. The LWDA has launched a new PAGA website, though it notes that the statutorily required online filing system is not yet developed. It also notes the prior reality about the LWDA’s role in PAGA enforcement—that employees and employers ordinarily won’t hear anything from the LWDA.

Only time will tell if the LWDA is ready to become more involved. What remains certain—and what the PAGA amendments do not alter—is that California employers will continue to face an abundance of PAGA litigation.

 

Authored by Simon L. Yang

When PAGA—California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004—was first enacted, we knew it would take years to see how it would be applied. Twelve years (and over $30 million in penalties paid to the state) later, we thought we’d have more answers. But many California employers, attorneys, and judges, now all too familiar with PAGA, still are uncertain how to manage and litigate PAGA claims and continue to await guidance.

But we’re tired of waiting. And we might be waiting for Godot (since California legislators have those more than 30 million reasons to like the PAGA status quo). Nor can we expect California executives and agencies to assist, since they largely ignore their roles for overseeing and authorizing PAGA claims (as less than 1% of received PAGA notices are even reviewed in practice).

So the joy of addressing the uncertainty of PAGA is left for litigants and courts. Of course, courts can’t really be blamed for furthering confusion with inconsistent and contradictory rulings, since one of the few certainties is that the bounty hunter statute simply isn’t the California legislature’s finest work—meaning only that the statute’s text is the source of much PAGA confusion.

But wait no more, and add this to the list of certainties: The California Wage & Hour Series will include “PAGA Primer” posts returning to the basics, starting with the statute, and seeking to defuse PAGA misconceptions. It’s time to ask the stupid questions: What does PAGA actually say? When does PAGA create penalties? Does PAGA permit recovery of two penalties for a single violation? Does PAGA create substantive or procedural rights? Does Rule 23’s applicability to a PAGA claim vary on a case-by-case basis? Does PAGA exempt claims from manageability requirements? Does a right to a jury trial exist for PAGA claims? Asking stupid questions is the way to avoid stupid answers.

We’ll still blog on PAGA developments—including the California legislature’s response to the governor’s proposed amendments, the California Supreme Court’s ruling on the standard for and scope of PAGA discovery, and maybe even a final disposition in a case permitting the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the Iskanian rule. And we’ll not only wait for answers but also take the proactive approach by addressing a series of basic but necessary questions.

If you have other PAGA questions that you want answered, well, good luck—you’re not alone. Joking aside, feel free to reach out to the author or any of the other 50+ members of Seyfarth’s California Wage & Hour Litigation team if you need assistance with PAGA, want to suggest questions, or just want to talk PAGA.

Co-authored by Hillary J. Massey and Kerry Friedrichs

The Ninth Circuit this week blessed an employer’s policy of rounding employee time punches to the nearest quarter hour, affirming summary judgment in favor of the company on an employee’s challenge to the rounding policy under the FLSA and the California Labor Code.

“This case turns on $15.02 and one minute.” From the first line of its decision in Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, the Ninth Circuit signaled the common-sense approach that it would apply in assessing the legality of rounding practices. The court rejected plaintiff’s claims for $15.02, the total amount he claimed to have been underpaid due to the rounding policy, and one minute, the total amount of “off the clock” time for which plaintiff alleged he was not compensated. In the first published decision by any court of appeals on this issue, the 9th Circuit took a practical view of the federal rounding regulation, repeatedly referring to the purpose and effectiveness of rounding policies.

The Policy

At issue in the case was whether the company’s rounding policy complied with federal and California law. Time Warner’s timekeeping system rounded all employee punches to the nearest quarter hour in a facially-neutral manner. The rounding was automatic and not subject to manager oversight or editing.

The Court’s Practical Interpretation of the Rounding Rule

The federal rounding rule permits employers to round employees’ time to the nearest 5 minutes, one-tenth, or quarter hour, so long as the rounding does not result, over time, in a failure to compensate employees for time worked. California courts and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement have applied this rule to rounding claims under California law as well.

The plaintiff claimed that any failure to pay any employee for any time worked caused by the rounding violates the rounding rule and state and federal wage laws. Noting that no other circuit court of appeals had addressed the issue in a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit ruled that requiring rounding to be neutral each pay period for each employee, would “gut the effectiveness” of using rounding because it would require employers to “unround” time each pay period to ensure its neutrality—an analysis the rounding regulation was designed to avoid. Thus, even though the rounding practice had a slight net negative impact to plaintiff (by $15.02), this did not establish that the practice was not neutral. In some pay periods the plaintiff benefited from rounding and in other pay periods he did not, and this demonstrated that Time Warner’s policy was neutral in application.

The Ninth Circuit further rejected plaintiff’s argument that California’s daily overtime requirement impacted the neutrality of Time Warner’s rounding because overtime minutes are more valuable because they are paid at an overtime rate. Noting that a California court had previously found this argument to be without merit, the Ninth Circuit noted that there is “no analytical difference between rounding in the context of daily overtime and rounding in the context of weekly overtime,” and that, because the rounding policy was neutral, employees could benefit from the rounding (and would receive overtime pay) just as easily as they could miss out on some overtime pay.

The De Minimis Rule Need Not Be Pled as an Affirmative Defense

The plaintiff’s absurd claim that he was entitled to pay for one minute of off-the-clock work was the basis for another employer victory in this decision: a ruling that the de minimis doctrine does not have to be pled as an affirmative defense. The court ruled the doctrine is a “rule,” not an affirmative defense that must be pled in an answer. Finally, the court, not surprisingly and in accordance with current case law, held that one minute of off-the-clock work is de minimis and thus need not be paid.

No Certification of “a Class Without a Claim”

The Ninth Circuit ruled on a final issue in a way that reflects common sense from the perspective of employers, but may be disconcerting for would-be class plaintiffs: that a court’s summary judgment decision on the merits of plaintiff’s individual claim “fully moots” the need to address the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and a court should not be required to entertain plaintiff’s “attempt to certify a class without a claim.”