Elliot v. Spherion Pacific Work, LLC

• Decision Date: 13 August 2008
• Docket Number: No. CV 06-5032 ABC (PLAx).,CV 06-5032 ABC (PLAx).
• Citation: 572 F.Supp.2d 1169
• Parties: Leisa ELLIOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPHERION PACIFIC WORK, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

572 F.Supp.2d 1169

Leisa ELLIOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPHERION PACIFIC WORK, LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 06-5032 ABC (PLAx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

August 13, 2008.

D. Alan Harris, David Zelenski, Jonathon Ricasa, Harris, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Gregg A. Fisch, Michael L. Gallion, David T. Van Pelt, Jeffrey A. Wortman, Seyfarth Shaw, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

AUDREY B. COLLINS, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgement Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication ("Motions"), filed on September 10, 2007. Both Defendant Spherion Pacific Workforce, LLC's ("Defendant") and Plaintiff Leisa Elliot ("Plaintiff') filed Oppositions and Replies. The Court continued the hearing on the Motions several times at the parties' request, and the Motions came on for hearing on August 11, 2008. Upon consideration of the materials submitted by the parties, the argument of counsel, and the case file, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Leisa Elliot ("Plaintiff") brings this class action lawsuit against her former employer Spherion Pacific Workforce, LLC, ("Spherion" or "Defendant"), alleging that Defendant failed to pay her in a timely manner, failed to pay her for time worked, and issued wage statements that did not include all of the information required by law. Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff asserts the following five causes of action: (1) for continuing wages under California Labor Code ("Labor Code") section 203 based upon violation of Labor Code section 201; (2) violation of Labor Code sections 510, 558, and 1194 for failure to pay overtime and minimum wage; (3) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206, for failure to pay minimum wage; (4) violation of Labor Code section 226 for failure to provide wage statements with all required information; and (5) a claim pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for civil penalties based upon the above alleged violations.

Both parties move for summary judgment, asserting that there are no material issues of triable fact requiring trial, and that the undisputed facts established that each is entitled to judgment. The Court has reviewed the parties' statements of undisputed facts and statements of genuine issues.¹ Nearly all of the material facts are indeed undisputed; the parties differ primarily over the legal conclusions that must be drawn from the facts. The undisputed material facts as follows²:

A. Background Facts

Spherion is a staffing company that provides job assignments to temporary/billable employees in California and throughout the United States and Canada. Spherion supplies workers, both temporary and direct hires, to its clients. (DSUF 1.)

Spherion recruits and hires it own employees and assigns them to businesses to support or supplement their regular workforces; to provide assistance in special work situations such as employee absences, skill shortages, and seasonal workloads; and to perform special assignments or projects. (DSUF 4.)

B. Facts Relating to Plaintiff's Minimum Wage Claims.

The typical procedure followed by Spherion when it receives a customer order for temporary help is to first have a Spherion client service representative review the Spherion database to determine which employee's skills and preferences best match the particular customer's needs. (DSUF 7.)³

Spherion's representative then contacts the employee, describes the prospective assignment, pay rate, and expected length of assignment. If the employee accepts the assignment, he or she reports directly to work at Spherion's customer's premises. (DSUF 8, 9.)⁴

Upon completion of the assignment (or in the case of ongoing assignments, at the completion of each week of work), the employee is required to record the hours worked, as verified by the customer, and submit them to Spherion. (DSUF 10.)

Spherion uses the temporary employee's record of hours worked to generate the employee's paychecks and customer invoices. Spherion's temporary employees are paid weekly. (DSUF 11, 12.)

C. Facts Relating to Plaintiff's Claims Under Labor Code sections 201 and 203.

The nature of employment as a temporary worker with a temporary services employer is that the work is typically intermittent, and temps often have breaks between assignments that can vary from a few days or weeks, to months. (DSUF 14, 16.)

Spherion's temporary employees generally understand that work assignments they are provided by Spherion are typically not for a definite period of time and, as such, are unpredictable in length, and that they have no expectation of payment immediately upon assignment completion. (DSUF 22.)⁵

Plaintiff has never had a full-time position, but rather "worked a lot of different temp assignments." (DSUF 23.) Prior to commencing employment with Spherion in August 2004, Plaintiff worked for at least ten (10) other staffing companies and, as a result, "understood how the temporary assignment process worked." (DSUF 24.)

On August 5, 2004, Plaintiff completed the Spherion application process through Spherion's Warner Bros. on-premises office, in Burbank, California. (DSUF 26.) During her employment with Spherion, Plaintiff worked at more than 15 different assignments at Warner Bros., ranging in time from one day to several weeks. (DSUF 34.) While an employee of Spherion, Plaintiff never interviewed directly with Warner Bros., or for any other Spherion client, for any temporary assignments. (DSUF 32.)⁶

During the entire time period that Plaintiff was employed by Spherion, she always emailed Spherion when she was available for assignments and informed Spherion of her availability for additional assignments. (DSUF 44.) When Plaintiff submitted her timesheet for the work she performed on August 22, 2005, she informed Spherion that she was "available for work" the following day. (DSUF 48.) At the time Plaintiff submitted her timesheet for the work she performed on August 22, 2005, Plaintiff "had no idea that it was going to be [her] last assignment." (DSUF 49.)

As demonstrated by the telephone calls and emails exchanged between Plaintiff and Spherion during August, September, and October 2005, Plaintiff continued to seek additional assignments from Spherion until at least October 15, 2005. (DSUF 45.) Spherion informed Plaintiff on numerous occasions, after August 22, 2005, that it was seeking additional assignments for her. No one from Spherion ever indicated anything to the contrary or informed her that she would not be provided with additional assignments. (DSUF 51, 52.)

Other than on perhaps one occasion, Plaintiff received her compensation from Spherion through direct deposit. (DSUF 55.) In addition to having her compensation direct-deposited into her bank account, Plaintiff always received a hard copy version of her wage statement. (DSUF 56.)

Each week that she was employed by Spherion, Plaintiff followed the same basic procedures to complete the compensation process. After obtaining her Warner Bros. supervisor's approval of her timesheets at the end of each week or assignment, Plaintiff would submit the timesheets to Spherion. Plaintiff typically submitted the completed timesheets on Friday after her final shift of the week ended. (DSUF 60-64; PSUF 19.) By the following Friday, Plaintiff received her direct deposit payment in her bank account. (DSUF 65.)

On September 2, 2005, Plaintiff received her final compensation from Spherion. (DSUF 66.) Because Spherion did not provide Plaintiff with any other temporary assignment thereafter—an outcome that neither Spherion nor Plaintiff knew would transpire at that time—the September 2, 2005 paycheck turned out to be Spherion's final paycheck to Plaintiff. (DSUF 67.)

D. Facts Relating to Claims that Spherion Issued Insufficient Wage Statements.

Spherion included an employee identification number on each of Plaintiffs wage statements. (DSUF 75.)

Spherion included the name and address of Plaintiffs employer on the wage statements. The wage statements refer to "Spherion Pacific Work, LLC." The full name of Plaintiffs employers is Spherion Pacific Workforce, LLC. (DSUF 76 and Pl.'s Response to DSUF 76; PSUF 24, 26, 36.)

Each time Plaintiff received her wage statement, she reviewed the document and "always believe[d] it to be correct." (DSUF 57.)

Plaintiff never complained to anyone at Spherion that she perceived any problems with her wage statement. (DSUF 58.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment shall be granted where "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

If, as here, the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party has no burden to negate the opponent's claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party does not have the burden to produce any evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. "Instead, ... the burden on the moving party may be discharged by `showing'— that is, pointing out to the district court— that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. Once the moving party satisfies this initial burden, "an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading ... [Rather,] the adverse party's response ... must...