Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc.

Decision Date06 January 2020
Docket NumberNos. 17-15983,17-16142,s. 17-15983
Citation946 F.3d 1066
Parties Charles RIDGEWAY ; Jaime Famoso; Joshua Harold; Richard Byers; Dan Thatcher ; Willie Franklin; Time Opitz; Farris Day; Karl Merhoff, Plaintiffs-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, v. WALMART INC., DBA Wal-Mart Transportation LLC, Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

SILER, Circuit Judge:

Long-haul truckers perform a vital service in the nation’s economy. No wonder then, that Wal-Mart, among the world’s largest retail companies, employs hundreds of truck drivers. Still, over a decade ago, drivers in California felt that Wal-Mart did not pay them properly in accordance with California law. So they sued in a class action. After a sixteen-day trial, the jury agreed with Wal-Mart on most issues. On some claims, however, the jury sided with the class of truckers and awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages.

Now, Wal-Mart asks this panel to erase that judgment. Wal-Mart contends that the district court erred at every step along the way—in concluding that it had jurisdiction, in certifying a class, in interpreting California minimum wage law, in allowing expert testimony, and in providing jury instructions.

But it is improper for this court to play armchair district judge. In the end, while Wal-Mart makes some compelling points, Wal-Mart raises no reversible error. Additionally, the district court properly concluded that liquidated damages are not owed under California law because Wal-Mart demonstrated that it acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the legality of its conduct. Accordingly, we AFFIRM .

I. Background
A. The Original Lawsuit, the Stay, and the Named Plaintiffs

More than a decade ago, four truck drivers sued Wal-Mart in Alameda County Superior Court claiming Wal-Mart violated state meal and rest break laws. Those drivers worked out of several distribution centers in California that served as hubs through which Wal-Mart delivered items across the western United States. As part of their job, truckers would travel a wide range of routes, to different locations, hauling different freight. And, by industry standards, the truckers were paid well—an average of $300 per day and between $80,000 and more than $100,000 annually.

Still, drivers claimed that they were not receiving adequate minimum wage pay. Wal-Mart paid truckers through what it called an activity-based pay system. That system included pay for (1) mileage, (2) tasks that constituted "activity," such as arriving and departing a facility, as well as hooking a new trailer to the truck, and (3) hourly wages of fourteen dollars per hour for limited events like time spent waiting at a store or supplier, delays due to inclement weather, or delays caused by a truck breakdown.

Wal-Mart removed the suit to federal court. Subsequently, the parties agreed to stay the suit while the California Supreme Court considered an issue that would affect the truckers’ claims. Three years later, in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court , 53 Cal.4th 1004, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 (2012), the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer must make meal and rest breaks available, but employers did not have to ensure that employees took such breaks.

Consequently, the stay was lifted. Just one problem: it was unclear if any of the named plaintiffs remained in the lawsuit. Of the four original plaintiffs, two had died during the stay, one had lost interest in pursuing the case, and class counsel had concerns about the fourth plaintiff’s ability to adequately represent the class.

Thus, plaintiffscounsel asked the court to order Wal-Mart to turn over information about potential class members so that counsel could determine the identity of new plaintiffs and class representatives. Wal-Mart objected, arguing that without an adequate plaintiff, the district court did not have jurisdiction. Citing the "unique circumstances" of the case, and noting that information about putative class members would serve purposes other than finding new plaintiffs, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion.

After obtaining new information from Wal-Mart, plaintiffscounsel found new named plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint. Under plaintiffs’ theory, Wal-Mart did not pay drivers for time spent under the company’s control—such as during layovers, rest breaks, and inspections—in violation of California law. Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint in 2013, seeking damages, restitution, and statutory penalties under California law.

B. Class Certification

Next, plaintiffs moved to certify a class. They argued that all Wal-Mart drivers in California after October 10, 2004, were subject to the same written pay policies. Additionally, plaintiffs contended that common issues predominated over any individual issues because there were only "minor variations" among the class members.

Wal-Mart objected. It argued that huge variations among truckers’ locations, routes, and duties could lead to differences in pay, so individual issues infected the class, making certification inappropriate.

The district court agreed with plaintiffs and certified the class.

C. Pre-Trial Partial Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs

Then, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that Wal-Mart did not pay drivers for all job duties, required drivers to take rest breaks without pay, and "controlled" drivers during ten-hour layover periods, entitling drivers to minimum wage pay.

The district court granted partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ minimum wage liability claims. The district court found that under Wal-Mart’s pay policy—if applied as written—drivers were not paid separately for some activities and that those activities "may not properly be built in or subsumed into the activity pay component of Wal-Mart’s pay policies." The court also held that, under the policy, drivers were subject to Wal-Mart’s "control"—as defined by California law—during layovers. Thus, the district court found that Wal-Mart must pay minimum wages during those times. Although the district court found that Wal-Mart’s policies described practices that would violate California law, the court presented to the jury the factual question of whether Wal-Mart had implemented those policies.

D. Wal-Mart’s Pre-Trial Motions

After discovery concluded, Wal-Mart made several pretrial motions. First, it argued that the case could not proceed on a classwide basis based on variations in the routes, daily tasks, and duties of each driver. The district court denied the motion.

Second, Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment on the minimum wage claims. It argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ("FAAAA") preempted California law. Again, the district court denied the motion.

Third, Wal-Mart moved to exclude Dr. G. Michael Phillips from providing expert testimony about classwide damages. Phillips said he could "estimate how much time [truckers] spent performing various activities[,] and then, under various assumptions, ... estimate dollar equivalent values for such time." The district court also denied Wal-Mart’s motion to exclude, ruling that Wal-Mart’s issue with Phillips’s proposed testimony went toward "weight rather than ... admissibility."

E. Trial and Jury Instructions

The trial occurred in 2016, focusing on plaintiffs’ minimum wage claims for eleven separate activities from October 2004 to October 2015.

Among the jury instructions, the district court issued a California minimum wage instruction stating:

"Wages" includes all amounts for labor performed by an employee, whether the amount is calculated by time, task, piece, commission, or some other method. The rate of the minimum wage is set forth in Instruction No. 13.
The Court has previously found that Wal-Mart’s 2008 driver pay manual states that no pay is earned for certain tasks. Such a policy, if enforced or applied, does not comply with California’s minimum wage laws. A policy that does not compensate directly for all time worked does not comply with California Labor Codes, even if, averaged out, it would pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked. Therefore, if Wal-Mart applied the policy as it is stated in the driver pay manual, such that no pay was earned for certain tasks, then it did not comply with California’s minimum wage law. Wal-Mart may, however, pay drivers for certain tasks through activity codes that include those tasks.
What is stated in any pay plan or written policy does not itself establish whether someone was paid the minimum wage. Rather, plaintiffs must still prove that, in accordance with the pay policy, the class members in fact were not paid for certain tasks. Plaintiffs have the burden to prove their claims.

The court also instructed the jury about layovers:

Plaintiffs claim that Wal-Mart owes them unpaid wages for time spent during 10-hour "layovers" at the end of a shift. Plaintiffs claim that Wal-Mart owes them the difference between the layover fee paid by Wal-Mart and the wages that plaintiffs claim should have been paid according to the minimum wage rate required by state law.
Under California law, employers must pay employees at least the minimum wage per hour for all hours worked. "Hours worked" is defined as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." The level of the employer’s control over its employees, rather than the mere fact that the employer requires the employee’s activity, is determinative.
The Court has previously found that the policies stated in Wal-Mart’s driver pay manuals subjected drivers to Wal-Mart’s control during layover periods. Under California law, the drivers must be paid for all of the time that they were subject to Wal-Mart’s control. Therefore, if plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Cal. Trucking Ass'n v. Bonta
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 28, 2021
    ...resources or make different business decisions." Dilts , 769 F.3d at 646–47 (emphasis omitted); see also Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc. , 946 F.3d 1066, 1083 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a law was not preempted, even if employers had to factor the law "into their decisions about the prices they ......
  • Little v. KIA Motors Am., Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 25, 2020
    ...by many federal courts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the federal analogue to Rule 4:32. See, e.g., Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., 946 F.3d 1066, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that although the amount of damages is invariably an individual question, class members may resort to repr......
  • Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • October 6, 2020
    ...employees] can amount to representative evidence." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ridgeway v. Walmart, Inc., 946 F.3d 1066, 1087 (9th Cir. 2020). A defendant may still mount individual defenses against representative testimony. See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, sup......
  • Davidson v. O'Reilly Auto Enters., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 3, 2020
    ...In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig. , 722 F.3d 838, 857 (6th Cir. 2013) ); see also Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc. , 946 F.3d 1066, 1078–82 (9th Cir. 2020) (observing it was jury's role "to decide whether Wal-Mart implemented the written policies" concerning control ove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Employment Law Case Notes
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 34-2, March 2020
    • Invalid date
    ..."destroyed GPP's trade secret."Ninth Circuit Affirms $54.6 Million Verdict in Favor of Wal-Mart Truckers Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020)In this class action, truckers for Wal-Mart alleged they should have been but were not paid for layovers, rest breaks, and inspecti......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT