Boone v. Amazon.Com Servs., LLC

• Decision Date: 11 March 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-00241-DAD-BAM
• Citation: 562 F.Supp.3d 1103
• Parties: Heather BOONE and Roxanne Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

562 F.Supp.3d 1103

Heather BOONE and Roxanne Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-00241-DAD-BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed March 11, 2022

David W. Hodges, Pro Hac Vice, Don J. Foty, Pro Hac Vice, William M. Hogg, Hodges & Foty LLP, Houston, TX, Matthew S. Parmet, Parmet PC, Walnut, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew Kilberg, Pro Hac Vice, Jason Craig Schwartz, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Katherine V.A. Smith, Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

(Doc. No. 24)

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Dale A. Drozd, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC ("Amazon") on June 3, 2021. (Doc. No. 24.) Pursuant to General Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, defendant's motion was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 27.) For the reasons explained below, the court will deny in part and grant in part defendant's pending motion to dismiss.¹

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint ("FAC") in this putative wage-and-hour class and collective action against their employer Amazon, for allegedly failing to compensate employees for time spent undergoing COVID-19 symptom screenings before the beginning of each of their shifts. (Doc. No. 23.) On January 14, 2022, the parties stipulated to allow plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"), which plaintiffs filed that same day. (Doc. Nos. 35, 36.) The only difference between plaintiffs’ FAC and SAC is that plaintiffs’ SAC includes additional California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claims. (Doc. No. 35 at 2.) However, the parties agree that "to the extent the Court holds that an asserted Labor Code violation has not been sufficiently alleged and is therefore subject to dismissal, then the PAGA claims shall also be deemed to not have been sufficiently alleged[.]" (Id. at 3.) The parties also have stipulated that defendant's original motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 24)—filed in response to the FAC—shall still constitute defendant's responsive pleading to the SAC, and neither party offers additional arguments with respect to that motion. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, the court will treat defendant's original and pending motion (Doc. No. 24) as seeking dismissal of the SAC.

In their SAC, plaintiffs allege as follows. Amazon operates fulfillment centers across the country. (Doc. No. 36 at ¶ 25.) These fulfillment centers are the warehouses where Amazon stores packages that are delivered to customers. (Id. ) Hundreds of Amazon employees work at each of these centers. (Id. )

Plaintiff Heather Boone, a resident of Kerman, California, and plaintiff Roxanne Rivera, a resident of Atwater, California, worked as hourly, non-exempt employees at Amazon's fulfillment centers. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11, 26, 27.) Plaintiff Boone worked at the fulfillment center in Fresno, and her job duties included gathering packages from the Amazon warehouse, scanning them, placing them in boxes, and labeling the items. (Id. at ¶ 26.) She normally worked four days per week and her normal shift was eight to ten hours on average. (Id. ) Plaintiff Rivera worked at Amazon fulfillment centers in Patterson and Tracy, California, from approximately 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. for four consecutive days, followed by three days off. (Id. at ¶ 27.) At the Tracy facility, plaintiff Rivera's duties included gathering items from the shelves in the warehouses and putting them in carts, and at the Patterson facility, her duties similarly included gathering items and placing them in the right location in the warehouse. (Id. ) As hourly, non-exempt employees, plaintiffs were required to clock-in and clock-out each day. (Id. at ¶ 28.)

Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus, Amazon implemented a company-wide policy requiring each of its hourly, non-exempt employees to undergo a physical and medical examination to check for symptoms of the virus before starting each shift. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Pursuant to this policy, prior to clocking in each day, plaintiffs were required to undergo a COVID-19 screening. (Id. ) Amazon employed two methods in performing the screening. (Id. at ¶ 30.) In the first method, which was employed at its Tracy location, the Amazon employee approached a security booth, swiped their badge to confirm they were an employee of Amazon, and were then asked a series of questions. (Id. ) Those questions included: (1) whether they have been exposed to others who have COVID-19; (2) whether they are currently experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, such as runny nose or shortness of breath; and (3) whether they have a face mask to wear. (Id. ) If the employee successfully cleared this first examination, the employee then walked to a second checkpoint. (Id. at ¶ 31.) There, the employee was subject to a body temperature scan to determine whether they had a fever. (Id. ) If the employee passed this second examination, the employee was then allowed to clock-in for the day. (Id. )

In the second screening method employed by Amazon, the employees were required to form a line at the entrance to the facility and were then called one-by-one to a checkpoint where the COVID-19 screening took place. (Id. at ¶ 32.) This screening process involved another Amazon employee taking the temperature of each employee whose shift was about to start and asking a series of questions related to their health, such as whether they were having trouble breathing, were coughing, had a runny nose, or were experiencing chest pain. (Id. ) The employees were also asked questions such as whether they had travelled recently or whether they had been exposed to someone infected with COVID-19. (Id. ) If the employee passed this examination, they were provided a mask to wear at work. (Id. )

Under either screening method, if an employee did not initially pass the screening examination, that employee was moved to another section of the facility where a further examination occurred, and there the employee was asked a series of follow-up questions to identify whether that employee currently was exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 and therefore posed a potential health hazard to the facility. (Id. at ¶ 33.) If the employee passed this second stage examination, the employee was then given a face mask and was allowed to clock-in to work their shift for the day. (Id. ) If an employee did not pass this second stage examination, that employee was not permitted to work that day. (Id. ) The amount of time it took to undergo the COVID-19 screening examinations was approximately 10–15 minutes on average. (Id. at ¶ 34.) However, this amount of time could be longer depending upon the number of other Amazon employees in line for the COVID-19 screening. (Id. ) Although the examination was conducted on the premises of Amazon, was required by Amazon, and was necessary in order for each employee to perform his or her work for the day, Amazon refused to pay employees for the time they spent undergoing these COVID-19 symptom screenings. (Id. at ¶¶ 36–38.)

According to plaintiffs, the COVID-19 screening examinations constitute compensable time that was worked by plaintiffs and the putative class members that plaintiffs seek to represent, comprised of: "All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon who underwent a COVID-19 screening during at least one week in California in the four-year period before the filing of the Original Complaint to final resolution of this Action." (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 57.) In particular, plaintiffs and the putative class members were required to follow Amazon's instructions and were confined to Amazon's premises while awaiting and during the COVID-19 screening. (Id. at ¶¶ 36, 37.) Plaintiffs assert that through the screening process, Amazon directs, commands, and retrains its employees; prevents them from using that time effectively for their own purposes; and that the employees remain subject to Amazon's control during the COVID-19 examination. (Id. at ¶ 39.)

According to plaintiffs, the screenings were necessary to the principal work performed by plaintiffs and the putative class members because they were necessary to ensure a safe workplace. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Moreover, plaintiffs assert that the screenings were undertaken primarily for the benefit of Amazon. (Id. ) It is plaintiffs’ understanding and belief that Amazon required its employees to undergo this COVID-19 screening procedure for the purposes of overall safety in the facilities and to prevent the employees from inadvertently infecting the Amazon facilities or even Amazon products, which could in turn potentially infect customers. (Id. at ¶ 43.) In that event, Amazon's business would be disrupted, and the plaintiffs and putative class members would not be able to perform their work. (Id. at ¶ 45.) Plaintiffs contend that in light of Amazon's failure to pay employees for the time spent undergoing these screenings, Amazon has violated both California and federal law and the class members are owed significant unpaid wages. (Id. at ¶ 47–48.)

Specifically, plaintiffs assert that Amazon's conduct violates California law because Amazon failed to pay for all hours worked by its employees, failed to pay overtime wages, and failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by the California Labor Code and California Industrial Wage Commission Wage Orders. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Moreover, plaintiffs also file this action to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved Employees under California Labor Code § 2699, or the PAGA. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Lastly, plaintiffs allege that Amazon's conduct also violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), which requires non-exempt employees to be...