Harper v. Charter Commc'ns

• Docket Number: 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC
• Decision Date: 23 August 2023
• Parties: LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

1

LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 23, 2023

Jamin S. Soderstrom, SODERSTROM LAW PC Counsel for Plaintiffs, Putative Class Members, and Aggrieved Employees

Joseph W. Ozmer II Nathan D. Chapman J. Scott Carr KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP Counsel for Defendant Charter Communications, LLC

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION, CONFIRMING FINAL AWARD OF ARBITRATOR, AND ENTERING JUDGMENT (TURNER ARBITRATION)

WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Plaintiff Hassan Turner and Defendant Charter Communications, LLC jointly submitted Notice of Final Award of Arbitrator and Joint Stipulation and Motion to Confirm Final Award and Enter Judgment (Turner Arbitration), which provides as follows:

WHEREAS, on October 13, 2021, the Court granted Charter's motion to compel individual arbitration of Turner's claims under the Mutual Arbitration Agreement (also known as the Solution Channel Agreement), and stayed his individual claims pending the completion of arbitration proceedings. Dkt. 202.

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2023, Arbitrator Ruth V. Glick, who was appointed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and presided over the arbitration between Turner and Charter, issued an Interim Award. Exhibit 1 (Interim Award).

WHEREAS, on July 20, 2023, the Arbitrator issued a Final Award that incorporated the Interim Award and concluded the arbitration. Exhibit 2 (Final Award).

NOW, THEREFORE, Turner and Charter stipulate and jointly move the Court to: (1) issue an order pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 13, confirming the Final Award; (2) file such order with the clerk for the entry of judgment thereon; and (3) file the following papers with the clerk in accordance with 9 U.S.C. § 13:

a. the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, attached as Exhibit 3;

b. the AAA's appointment of the Arbitrator, attached as Exhibit 4

c. the Final Award, attached as Exhibit 2, and the Interim Award incorporated into the

Final Award, attached as Exhibit 1; and d. the Court order dated October 13, 2021, attached as Exhibit 5 (also in the Court's record as Docket 202).

Having reviewed the Interim Award and Final Award, and finding no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the Final Award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-11 (the parties having raised none), and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby GRANTS the joint motion and confirms the Final Award in full.

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 13, the Court attaches the following papers and instructs the clerk to file them with this ORDER:

3

a. the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, attached as Exhibit 3;

b. the AAA's appointment of the Arbitrator, attached as Exhibit 4

c. the Final Award, attached as Exhibit 2, and the Interim Award incorporated into the

Final Award, attached as Exhibit 1; and d. the Court order dated October 13, 2021, attached as Exhibit 5 (also in the Court's record as Docket 202).

The Parties' joint motion is GRANTED, the Final Award is CONFIRMED, and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED. The clerk shall docket this judgment pursuant to Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 13, and it shall have the same force and effect, in all respects, as, and be subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in an action.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED. LET JUDGMENT BE FORTHWITH ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

4

EXHIBIT 1

INTERIM AWARD DATED JUNE 16, 2023

5

American Arbitration Association Employment Arbitration Tribunal

In the Matter of the Arbitration between

Hassan Turner

and

Charter Communications, LLC

AAA Case # 01-22-0001-5254

INTERIM AWARD

I, THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been designated in accordance with the personnel manual or employment agreement entered into by the above-named parties and dated May 23, 2018, and having been duly sworn, and having duly heard the proofs and allegations of the Parties, and Claimant, Hassan Turner, being represented by Jamin Soderstrom of Soderstrom Law PC, and Respondent, Charter Communications, LLC, being represented by Nathan Chapman of Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP, hereby issue this Interim Award, as follows:

Procedural History

Claimant, Hassan Turner (“Claimant” or “Turner”) filed his misclassification and wage and hour claims against Charter Communications, LLC (“Charter”) with the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the Mutual Arbitration Agreement of Charter Communications (“MAA”), which he electronically signed on May 23, 2018, and pursuant to an Order from the Honorable William B. Shubb, Judge of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. Turner's individual arbitration is part of a larger class and representative Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action that has been pending against Charter Communications, LLC since May 3, 2019. Harper et al v Charter Communications, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902 (E.D. Cal.) Turner is a named plaintiff and proposed class representative in Harper et al v Charter Communications, LLC, and his court claims have been stayed since the court's October 13, 2021 order compelling arbitration. (JX 65).^[1] The arbitration claims arise from Turner's time working for Charter in 2018 as a Direct Sales Rep. (“DSR”).

6

A pre-hearing scheduling conference for the arbitration was held on June 29, 2022 and Claimant's Specification of Claims, Contentions and Relief was filed on July 15, 2022. Charter filed a Counterclaim in this arbitration on June 10, 2022, alleging a breach of contract claim by Claimant for refusing to pay Respondent's attorney fees in an effort to resist arbitration of his claims pursuant to paragraph K of the MAA. As the arbitrator in this matter, I concluded that I did not have arbitral jurisdiction to determine a claim for attorney's fees for an action that occurred in a federal judicial forum well before my appointment as arbitrator. I dismissed the counterclaim on August 26, 2022 without prejudice so that the Respondent could file its attorney's fee request with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District.

A series of requests for motions in advance of the arbitration were filed by both parties. Claimant filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings and both parties requested leave to file a number of dispositive motions in advance of the arbitration. I denied Claimant's Motion to Stay as well as both Claimant's and Respondent's request to file other dispositive motions on October 27, 2022.

The arbitration hearing in the matter of Hassan Turner and Charter Communications was held by Zoom on March 28, 2023. An exhibit binder with joint exhibits JX1-74, Claimant's exhibits CX1-3 and Respondent's exhibits RX 1-2 was provided to the arbitrator. Pre-hearing briefs from the parties were submitted on March 20, 2023 and Post-hearing briefs were submitted, after permission to postpone was granted, on May 5, 2023. The record was closed on May 17, 2023.

DISCUSSION

This case presents misclassification and wage and hour claims for two weeks of training that the Claimant, Hassan Turner, undertook prior to his employment as a Direct Sales Rep (“DSR”) for Charter Communications, where he worked for three months from June 15, 2018 to October 15, 2018. Turner, who had previously worked in sales, was hired by Charter as an exempt salaried and outside sales employee with a commission plan, based out of its Irwindale, CA office. (JX4). Turner was classified as an exempt outside salesperson for his entire employment as a DSR. He was paid a base salary, plus a sales commission allowance for the first five pay periods, commissions and other incentives. (JX 74). The two-week training sessions included classroom training as well as “ride alongs” or “shadowing” an experienced DSR on their ordinary door-to door-sales activity in the field.

Contentions

Claimant maintains he was not subject to the outside salesperson exception during these training sessions which included Week 1: June 15-21, 2018 and Week 2: June 22-28, 2018, alleging that Charter failed to meet its affirmative burden to prove that Turner was plainly and unmistakably exempt during that period. As a result, Claimant files the

7

following claims: failure to pay minimum wage and overtime demanding 20 hours^[2] of overtime wages (Counts 1 and 2); failure to provide 11 meal periods and 11 rest periods (Counts 3 and 4), failure to provide a “training weeks” wage statement (Count 6); and waiting time penalties for failure to timely pay him all wages owed upon termination (Count 7). In addition, Claimant asks for a combined $1,500 for statutory penalties, plus costs, expenses and attorney fees based on Charter's failure to timely provide him with copies of his wage statements and personnel records and files. (Count 8).^[3]

Respondent maintains that the evidence shows Turner was properly classified as an outside salesperson, i.e., one who customarily and regularly spends more than half of their working time away from their employers' place of business engaging in sales related activities that exempt him from California's minimum wage, overtime and meal and rest period requirements. Even if he were to be non-exempt, Respondent argues that Charter provided Turner the opportunity to take compliant meal and rest breaks. Because Turner was an exempt employee during the two training weeks, Charter contends that the nonexempt and derivative claims fail. Charter also denies that it failed to timely provide pay and employment records as alleged in Count 8.

After careful consideration of the evidence produced, the testimony given at the hearing and the case law, I have concluded that...