Ontiveros v. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 February 2017
• Docket Number: Case No.: CV 15–7118 DMG (RAOx)
• Citation: 231 F.Supp.3d 531
• Parties: Yadir A. ONTIVEROS, Plaintiff, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

231 F.Supp.3d 531

Yadir A. ONTIVEROS, Plaintiff, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

v.SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No.: CV 15–7118 DMG (RAOx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed February 7, 2017

Sean M. Blakely, Fletcher W. H. Schmidt, Paul Keith Haines, Haines Law Group APC, El Segundo, CA, for Plaintiff, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

Brent Mathew Giddens, Daphne Pierre Bishop, Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert A. Harris, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [37] AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT[39]

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Defendant Safelite Fulfillment, Inc.'s ("Safelite") motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 37] and Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. # 39]. The Court has reviewed and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, and heard oral argument on January 20, 2017. For the reasons that follow, the motions are hereby granted in part and denied in part.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Yadir A. Ontiveros ("Plaintiff") initiated this action on September 9, 2015, by filing a complaint against Defendants Safelite Group, Inc., Safelite Glass Corp., and Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. [Doc. # 1.] Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against the same defendants on October 28, 2015. [Doc. # 20.] The FAC asserts claims for: (1) failure to pay adequate compensation for overtime work, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 510, 558, 1194, and 1198 ; (2) failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 ; (3) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, in violation of Wage Order 4 and Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197 and 1182.12 ; (4) failure to pay premium compensation when workers were denied legally-compliant meal periods, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 4; (5) failure to pay premium compensation when workers were denied legally-compliant rest periods, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 and Wage Order 4; (6) failure to furnish Plaintiff with accurate and complete wage statements, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226 ; (7) unlawful deduction of Plaintiff's earned wages, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 221 ; (8) unfair competition, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. The FAC also asserts a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which effectively duplicates the aforementioned state law claims.

The parties stipulated to dismissal of the FLSA claim, and the Court dismissed this claim without prejudice. [Doc. # 44.]¹ The parties also stipulated to dismissal of Safelite Group, Inc., and Safelite Glass Corp., and the Court dismissed these defendants without prejudice. [Doc. # 35 at 2, ¶ 6.] Safelite, the sole remaining defendant, now moves for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff's remaining counts. [Doc. # 37.]

Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication of four issues. [Doc. # 39.]

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

"Safelite repairs and replaces vehicle glass for automobiles at various locations in California and on a mobile basis throughout California." [Doc. # 50, ¶ 1.] Safelight's technicians are responsible for repairing or replacing windshields both on a mobile basis and at Safelite's retail locations. [¶¶ 3–4.] Technicians are classified as non-exempt employees. [¶ 2.] In August 2009, Safelite hired Plaintiff to work as a warehouse employee. [¶ 5.] In March 2013, Plaintiff became a technician-trainee. [Id. ] Plaintiff was promoted to technician later that year. [¶ 6.]

Safelite's technicians are compensated pursuant to a Performance Pay Plan ("PPP"). [Doc. # 46–6 at 2.] The PPP document includes a pay table that lists the amount employees will receive for performing particular tasks for a particular type of customer. For example, where the customer is an insurance company, an individual, or a company, employees receive $34.50 for each replacement windshield installed and $15.00 for each repair. [Id. ] Where the customer is a rental or auction customer, employees receive lower rates for performing the same tasks. [Id. ]

The PPP document explains how an employee's take-home pay is determined:

Weekly Advance Pay Based on Hourly Rate.

Your total PPP earnings can vary from week to week based on changes in your personal productivity. To provide some predictability to your earnings, you will be paid a base hourly rate. That base rate is not intended to be your total pay, since we expect that you will be able to earn more money through the weekly PPP variable pay opportunity.

Each week you will receive a paycheck for the regular and overtime hours worked the previous week. The total hourly pay each week will be treated as an advance against the total PPP variable pay for the week.

Weekly Productivity Variable Pay

You will generate a PPP amount for each installation or repair you perform during the week, based on the pay table above. Weekly base pay advances, as described above, will be deducted from the total PPP pay earned for the week. If your PPP pay exceeds the amount paid out in your weekly base pay advance, the amount that exceeds your base pay advance will be added to your paycheck as PPP variable pay. If your PPP variable pay is less than your base pay advance, then you will not receive additional pay and a shortfall will be reflected on your paycheck. Shortfalls will not carry over from week to week for this Plan [;] you will have a new opportunity to earn and receive PPP variable pay each week.

[Id. at 3.]

The PPP document provides two examples of how compensation will be calculated under the policy. [Id. ] Example 1 offers the example of an employee who is entitled to a "weekly base pay" of $520, equivalent to $13.00 per hour for 40 hours of work. The employee completes 30 compensable tasks, each of which is compensated at a rate of $34.50, thereby earning a "total productivity variable pay" of $1,035. The company takes the difference between the total productivity variable pay and the weekly base pay, thereby calculating the "PPP incentive." The PPP incentive is then added to the weekly base pay to determine the employee's take-home pay.

The employee in Example 2 is also entitled to a weekly base pay of $520. This employee completes only 14 compensable tasks, thereby earning a total productivity variable pay of $483. The difference between the employee's total productivity variable pay and the weekly base pay is negative. Thus, the employee's take-home pay will equal his weekly base pay—there will be no incentive-based adjustment. The weekly base pay acts as a floor, below which an employee's take-home pay can never fall.

A second document, the Weekly Associate Productivity Statement, also contains a summary of the PPP. It states:

Your total earnings can vary week to week based on changes in your personal productivity. To provide some predictability to your earnings, you are paid a base hourly rate, or what is called an "advance." Each week you will receive a paycheck for regular, overtime, or paid-time-off hours worked the previous week. The "advance" is calculated as Regular earnings plus Overtime earnings. Paid-time-off earnings are not included in the advance.

Then, for each installation or repair you perform during the week you will earn a piece rate known as "PPP" rate. The accumulated total of these "PPP" rates will generate a weekly "PPP Bank." If your PPP Bank is greater than your weekly advance, the amount that exceeds your advance will be added to your paycheck as "PPP incentive." If your PPP Bank is less than your weekly advance, you will NOT receive additional pay and a shortfall will be reflected in your paycheck.

Shortfalls will not carry over from week to week for this Plan. You will have a new opportunity to earn and receive PPP incentive pay each week.

[Doc. # 46–4 at 4.]

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; accord Wash. Mut. Inc. v. United States , 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Nat'l Ass'n of Optometrists & Opticians v. Harris , 682 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Furthermore, if "the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out ‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.’ " Devereaux v. Abbey , 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex , 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ).

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, Rule 56(c) requires the nonmoving party to "go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ " Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e) ); see also Norse v. City of Santa Cruz , 629 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc ) ("Rule 56 requires the parties to set out facts they will be able to prove at trial."). "In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence."

Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. , 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). "Rather, it...