Certification from the U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash. in Mariano Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., 94229-3

• Decision Date: 10 May 2018
• Docket Number: No. 94229-3,94229-3
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Certification from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Mariano CARRANZA and Eliseo Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOVEX FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant.

190 Wash.2d 612

416 P.3d 1205

Certification from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Mariano CARRANZA and Eliseo Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.DOVEX FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 94229-3

Supreme Court of Washington.

Argued September 14, 2017

Filed May 10, 2018

Marc Cote, Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1200, Seattle, WA, 98104-1798, Toby James Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, 936 N 34th St. Ste. 300, Seattle, WA, 98103-8869 for Plaintiffs.

Clay M. Gatens, Sally Francis White, Devon Amy Gray, Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward, P.S., 2600 Chester Kimm Rd., Wenatchee, WA, 98801-8116 for Defendant.

Mario Martinez, PO Box 1998, Bakersfield, CA, 93303, Matthew Hyrum Adams, NW Immigrants Rights Project, 615 2nd Ave. Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98104-2244 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of United Farm Workers of America, Migrant Clinicians Network

Julian Hua Beattie, Washington State Office of the Attorney, PO Box 40117, Olympia, WA, 98504-0117, Solicitor General Division Attorney General, Attorney at Law, 1125 Washington Street, PO Box 40100, Olympia, WA, 98504-0100 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Attorney General.

Andrea L. Schmitt, Columbia Legal Services, 711 Capitol Way S Ste. 304, Olympia, WA, 98501-1233, Joachim Morrison, Attorney at Law, 300 Okanogan Ave. Ste. 2a, Wenatchee, WA, 98801-6940 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Familias Unidas Por Law Justicia.

Rebecca A. Smith, National Employment Law Project, 317 17th Ave. S, Seattle, WA, 98144-2147 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of National Employment.

Bruce Goldstein, 1126 16th Street Nw #270, Washington, DC, 20037 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Farmworker Justice.

Sarah Lynn Clarke Wixson, Brendan V. Monahan, Stokes Lawrence Velikanje Moore & Shore, 120 N. Naches Ave., Yakima, WA, 98901-2757 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Tree Fruit Association.

David N. Mark, Washington Wage Claim Project, 810 3rd Ave. Ste. 500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1619 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Wage Claim Project.

Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Attorney at Law, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1050 Seattle, WA, 98104-1759 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Employment Lawyers Association.

Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, 2775 Harbor Ave. Sw, Third Floor Ste. C, Seattle, WA, 98126-2138 for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Antonio Maldonado, Jr., Johnny Duarte, Del Feigel, Faustino Barrios, Natividad Rubio, Felipe Maldonado, Cristian Torres, Geronimo Carrillo, Refugio Carrillo, Pedro Garduno, Raymundo Garduno, Natalie Garduno, Mario Martinez, Leobardo Cardenas, Julio Mareno, Jose Dominguez, Miguel Meza, Nicanor Silva, Aaron Hernandez, Washington Trucking Association.

YU, J.

¶ 1 The Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), chapter 49.46 RCW, requires employers to compensate employees for their work. This case asks us to apply that general principle to the specific context of agricultural workers who are paid on a piece-rate basis for piece-rate picking work by answering the following two questions, which were certified to us by Judge Mendoza of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington:

A. Does Washington law require agricultural employers to pay their pieceworkers for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate picking work (e.g., "Piece Rate Down Time" and similar work)?

B. If the answer to the above question is "yes", how must agricultural employers calculate the rate of pay for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate picking work (e.g., "Piece Rate Down Time" and similar work)?

Order Certifying Questions & R. to Wash. Supreme Ct. & Staying Deadlines & Proceedings, Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., No. 2:16-cv-00054-SMJ at 2 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2017) (Order Certifying Questions).

¶ 2 The answer to the first certified question is yes. The plain language of the MWA requires employers to pay their adult workers "at a rate of not less than [the applicable minimum wage] per hour ." RCW 49.46.020(1) - (3) (emphasis added). There is no exception, other statutory provision, or judicial or executive interpretation that allows employers to evade this plain language in the context presented. Therefore, agricultural workers may be paid on a piece-rate basis only for the hours in which they are engaged in piece-rate picking work. Time spent performing activities outside the scope of piece-rate picking work must be compensated on a separate hourly basis.¹ We thus reject Dovex Fruit Company’s argument that it need ensure only that each worker’s average weekly compensation is equal to at least minimum wage.

¶ 3 The parties disagree about which, if any, tasks are outside the scope of piece-rate picking work. See Pls.’ Opening Br. on Certified Questions at 3-4; Def. Dovex Fruit Co.’s Answering Br. at 2-3. Judge Mendoza described this category of work as "not explicitly accounted for through piece-rate compensation." Order regarding Certification Questions to Wash. Supreme Ct. at 7. We recognize that what is accounted for by the piece rate is a factual dispute beyond the scope of the certified question presented. Discovery is ongoing, and we defer resolution of the question to the district court.

¶ 4 We answer the second certified question consistent with the parties’ position. The rate of pay for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate picking work must be calculated at the applicable minimum wage or the agreed rate, whichever is greater.²

BACKGROUND

¶ 5 This case began in 2016 when the two named plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit against Dovex on behalf of Dovex’s seasonal and migrant agricultural employees. Each summer, Dovex employs hundreds of seasonal and migrant workers, many of whom speak limited English, to harvest apples, pears, and cherries in Dovex’s orchards. The plaintiffs allege that Dovex violated state and federal law by willfully refusing to pay wages and failing to "pay minimum wage, provide paid rest breaks, maintain accurate and adequate time and wage records, pay wages when due, [and] provide accurate statements of hours worked." Order Certifying Questions at 1.

¶ 6 The only claim relevant to the certified questions presented here relates to agricultural workers who are paid on a piece-rate basis, which is a specified amount of money per bin of picked apples or pears, or per "lug" of picked cherries. Pls.’ Opening Br. on Certified Questions at 3. Such workers’ rate of pay is based on how many pieces of fruit are actually picked during a pay period.

¶ 7 The plaintiffs allege that Washington law requires Dovex to compensate them separately and in addition to the agreed upon piece rate for the time they spend on tasks outside of piece-rate picking. They agree that the piece rate compensates them for some tasks that are not strictly picking fruit, including going up and down ladders, moving between trees, and emptying fruit bins. Pls.’ Reply Br. on Certified Questions at 2. However, they argue they have a right to separate payment for time spent on other tasks such as transporting ladders to and from the company trailer, traveling between orchards and orchard blocks, attending mandatory meetings or trainings, and storing equipment and materials. Pls.’ Opening Br. on Certified Questions at 3.

¶ 8 Dovex responds that the plaintiffs are already fully compensated by the piece rate because all of the tasks they perform are part of piece-rate picking work. Def. Dovex Fruit Co.’s Answering Br. at 14. Although Dovex admits that it now pays its employees additional compensation for time spent on some nonpicking activities, it is undisputed that during the relevant time period Dovex did not. Stipulation of Facts for Questions Certified to Wash. Supreme Ct., Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., No. 2:16-cv-00054-SMJ at 3, 4 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2017).

¶ 9 The certified questions present a narrow issue that limit our conclusion to the context of agricultural workers.³ We must decide whether the pay structure used by Dovex is prohibited by the MWA and, if so, the rate of pay at which the workers’ time spent on tasks outside of piece-rate picking work must be compensated. We are not asked to decide which, if any, tasks are outside of piece-rate picking work in this case, and we do not attempt to do so. The scope of piece-rate picking is a question of fact, not law, and is therefore appropriately left to the district court.

ISSUES

1. "Does Washington law require agricultural employers to pay their pieceworkers for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate picking work (e.g., ‘Piece Rate Down Time’ and similar work)?" Order Certifying Questions at 2.

2. "If the answer to the above question is ‘yes’, how must agricultural employers calculate the rate of pay for time spent performing activities outside of piece-rate picking work (e.g., ‘Piece Rate Down Time’ and similar work)?" Id.

ANALYSIS

First Certified Question

¶ 10 The MWA "establish[es] minimum standards of employment within the state of Washington," including setting the minimum wage. RCW 49.46.005(1). Thirty years after its enactment, the MWA was expanded to apply to agricultural workers by the will of the people pursuant to their initiative power.⁴

LAWS OF 1959, ch. 294, § 1(5)(a); LAWS OF 1989, ch. 1, § 1(5)(a).

¶ 11 The MWA states that "every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees who has reached the age of eighteen years wages at a rate of not less than [the applicable minimum wage] per hour. " RCW 49.46.020(1) - (3) (emphasis added). The central issue here is our interpretation of the phrase "at a rate of not less than [the applicable minimum wage] per hour" and its narrow application to agricultural workers who are paid on a piece-rate basis.

¶ 12 The parties correctly agree that the MWA requires payment of at least minimum wage for all hours worked and that the time Dovex’s employees spend on the tasks allegedly outside of piece-rate picking work are...