Bell et al v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 158

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/7/2017 ORDERING #146 the Court GRANTS Home Depot's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA,
individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general
public similarly situated, and
as aggrieved employees pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General
Act (“PAGA”),

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiffs,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., a Delaware
corporation, et al.,
Defendants.
MICHAEL HENRY, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general
public,
Plaintiff,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-CV-02499 JAM-CKD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

This matter is back before the Court on Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., and John Brooks’ (“Home Depot”) motion for partial summary
1

1

judgment on Plaintiffs’ derivative claims for penalties under

2

California Labor Code sections 203 and 226. 1

3

forth below, Home Depot’s motion for partial summary judgment is

4

granted.

For the reasons set

5
6

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

7

Home Depot previously sought, and obtained, summary

8

adjudication on several of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action.

9

for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 72; Order re Summ. J., ECF No. 113.

Mot.

10

However, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment on

11

Plaintiffs’ claim that Home Depot failed to pay all required

12

overtime to employees who worked shifts over eight hours that

13

spanned two workdays.

14

granted class certification for “[a]ll persons who worked for

15

Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in California as a non-exempt,

16

hourly paid supervisor at any time from August 14, 2009 until the

17

date of [the class certification] order who worked at least one

18

overnight shift that crossed midnight of more than eight hours, and

19

who, as a result, was not paid overtime for the hours worked over

20

eight hours during such overnight shift.”

21

Certification, ECF No. 110.

22

derivative claims under the UCL and California Labor Code, to which

23

Home Depot had not objected.

24

Plaintiffs’ derivative claim under section 226(e).

25

Class Certification, ECF No. 105, at 57–58.

26

Order re Summ. J.

The Court subsequently

Order re Class

The Court also certified most of the

The Court denied certification of
Transcript re

On September 12, 2016, the Court consolidated Henry v. Home

27
1

28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for July 25, 2017.
2

1

Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02102-MCE-AC (“Henry”)—which had

2

been transferred to the Eastern District from the Northern District

3

of California—with this action, Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,

4

No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD.

5

Home Depot now seeks summary adjudication on Plaintiffs’

6

derivative claims for penalties under sections 203 and 226 of the

7

California Labor Code. 2

8
9

II.

OPINION

10

A.

Underlying Claim

11

It is undisputed that Home Depot defines its workday as the

12

calendar day beginning at 12:00AM and ending at 11:59PM.

13

Plaintiffs claim that Home Depot’s failure to pay class members

14

overtime wages for overnight shifts that exceeded eight hours

15

violates section 510’s daily overtime rules.

16

In denying Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment on the

17

midnight overtime claim, the Court adopted the Henry court’s

18

reasons for denying summary judgment on the same issue.

19

re Summ. J., Exh. A at 19 & 28–29; Def. Exh. E, “Order Denying

20

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” in Henry (“Henry

21

SJ Order”), ECF No. 147-5.

22

follows:

23

See Order

The Henry court summarized the law as

The California Labor Code affords an employer
significant flexibility in the designation of a
workweek and workday. However, the employer’s
designation must not be designed to evade paying
overtime. An employer may not engage in subterfuge or
artifice designed to evade the overtime laws.

24
25
26
27
28

2

All further section references are to the California Labor Code
unless otherwise indicated.
3

1

Henry SJ Order at 3 (citing Cummings v. Starbucks Corp., No. cv 12-

2

06345-MWF FFMX, 2013 WL 2096435, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013);

3

Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., 194 Cal. App 4th 361, 370 (2011);

4

Jakosalem v. Air Serv Corp., No. 13-cv-05944-SI, 2014 WL 7146672,

5

at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2014); Huntington Mem’l Hosp. v. Super.

6

Ct., 131 Cal. App. 4th 893, 910 (2005)) (quotation marks omitted).

7

It then adopted and applied the Jakosalem court’s holding that

8

although employers are not “required in all instances to define

9

each employee’s workday to begin with that employee’s shift,” an

10

employer may not implement a workday “designed primarily to evade

11

overtime compensation.”

12

In deciding Home Depot’s initial motion for summary judgment, this

13

Court followed Henry and held it could “not conclude as a matter of

14

law that [Home Depot’s] workday designation was not designed to

15

evade overtime law since there [were] disputed issues of material

16

fact, and the evidence before the Court [gave] rise to competing

17

inferences.”

18

and derivative claims thus remain in dispute.

Id. (citing Jakosalem, 2014 WL 7146672).

Order re Summ. J., Exh. A at 29.

The overtime claim

19

B.

Applicable Law

20

Home Depot argues that a good faith dispute with respect to

21

the overtime claim precludes imposition of penalties under section

22

203 and 226(e).

23

Section 203 imposes penalties on an employer that willfully

24

fails to pay an employee wages due at the time the employee quits

25

or is discharged.

26

intentionally fails to pay wages to an employee when those wages

27

are due.”

28

dispute that any wages are due will preclude imposition of waiting

“A willful failure . . . occurs when an employer

Cal. Code Reg. tit.8, § 13520.

4

“However, a good faith

1

time penalties under Section 203.”

2

Id.

A “good faith dispute” that any wages are due occurs
when an employer presents a defense, based in law or
fact which, if successful, would preclude any
recover[y] on the part of the employee. The fact that
a defense is ultimately unsuccessful will not preclude
a finding that a good faith dispute did exist.
Defenses presented which, under all the circumstances,
are unsupported by any evidence, are unreasonable, or
are presented in bad faith, will preclude a finding of
a “good faith dispute.”

3
4
5
6
7
8

Id.

Similarly, Section 226(e) imposes penalties when an employee

9

suffers injury due to the “knowing and intentional failure” of an

10

employer to provide accurate wage statements.

Courts have extended

11

the “good faith dispute” rule to Section 226, “even though Section

12

226 contains a ‘knowing and intentional’ standard rather than the

13

‘willfully’ standard of Section 203.”

14

No. C-14-0264 EMC, 2015 WL 2453202, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2015).

15

Thus, penalties under either section are precluded if there is a

16

good faith dispute over whether wages are due.

Woods v. Vector Mktg. Corp.,

17

C.

Good Faith Dispute

18

The Court finds there is a good faith dispute warranting

19

summary judgment on the section 203 and 226 derivative claims.

20

The factual disputes and proffered evidence regarding the overtime

21

claim are sufficient for determining the instant motion. However,

22

the Court does not express an opinion on Home Depot’s asserted

23

legal defenses to the underlying claim and this Order should not be

24

read as such.

25

The Court denied summary judgment on the midnight overtime

26

claim because triable issues of fact remained for a jury to

27

determine.

28

conclusion that Home Depot, at minimum, has a good faith factual

The evidence now before the Court supports the

5

1

defense to the overtime wages claim.

In contrast, Plaintiffs have

2

failed to show that this defense is unsupported, unreasonable, or

3

presented in bad faith.

4

Although Home Depot has not submitted direct evidence of a

5

bona fide business purpose for its initial workday designation,

6

Home Depot has presented circumstantial evidence tending to show

7

the company did not design the workday for the purpose of evading

8

overtime wages.

9

Director of Human Resources, attests that Home Depot established

Home Depot’s declarant, Christina Barnaby,

10

its workday in the 1980s, that this designation has never changed,

11

that this designation has always applied on a company-wide basis,

12

that the first California store opened in 1985, and that Home Depot

13

had never, prior to this litigation, analyzed the impact that its

14

workday definition has on the overtime the company saved or paid.

15

Barnaby Decl., ECF No. 146-1; see also Barnaby Depo. III at 18:5–7,

16

19:16–19 (“A: [The workday] was established when we were the

17

company opened its first store doors, which was prior to

18

1981. . . . Q: When did Home Depot first have stores in a state

19

that paid overtime on a daily basis? A: When we opened stores in

20

California.”); Jakosalem, 2014 WL 7146672, at *6 (“FLSA has no

21

provision requiring daily overtime pay.”).

22

company-wide practice is relevant because it shows Home Depot

23

defined the workday before it was subject to daily overtime laws in

24

California and maintains the same workday in places that do not

25

regulate daily overtime.

26

the impact of the workday definition on overtime savings or

27

payments further indicates a lack of purposeful design.

28

Additionally, Home Depot’s workday lines up with the default

This history of

The fact that Home Depot had not analyzed

6

1

workday in the California DLSE Manual (§ 48.1.3.1), which also

2

suggests neutrality.

3

in support of Home Depot’s defense that the company did not define

4

the workday for the purpose of evading its daily overtime

5

obligations.

6

These facts constitute substantial evidence

Plaintiffs have not shown that Home Depot’s defense is

7

unsupported, unreasonable, or presented in bad faith.

See Cal.

8

Code Reg. tit.8, § 13520; Woods, 2015 WL 2453202, at *4 (“Here,

9

this Court has already found that the classification issue raises

10

genuine disputes of material fact.

11

pointed to no cognizable evidence that raises a genuine material

12

dispute of fact regarding whether Vector’s defenses are unsupported

13

by any evidence, unreasonable, or presented in bad faith so as to

14

preclude a finding of a good faith dispute.”) (citations and

15

quotation marks omitted).

16

evidence are also insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

17

In turn, Plaintiffs have

Plaintiffs’ objections to Home Depot’s

On a motion for summary judgment, the Court looks to the facts

18

contained in the cited evidence, not the form of that evidence.

19

Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2010).

20

the content would be admissible at trial, the Court may consider it

21

for the summary judgment motion.

22

1036–37 (9th Cir. 2003).

23

If

Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032,

Plaintiffs’ objections to Ms. Barnaby’s Declaration based on

24

hearsay and lack personal knowledge do not preclude the Court’s

25

consideration of her statements.

26

Decl., ECF No. 153-3.

27

Director of Human Resources Operations and her declaration “is

28

based on her personal knowledge and/or review of pertinent Home

See Pls.’ Objections to Barnaby

Home Depot’s declarant, Ms. Barnaby, is the

7

1

Depot documents and records.”

See Barnaby Decl. ¶ 1.

Although her

2

statements concerning the history of the company’s workday

3

definition are based, in part, on hearsay, they are also based on

4

her personal knowledge of company policies and practices.

5

Barnaby Depo. III at 16:21–18:7, 40:1–22; Def. Rep. to Pls.’ Resp.

6

to Statement of Undisputed Facts, ECF No. 156-2.

7

she cannot testify to those facts at trial, the facts still appear

8

to be subject to other forms of proof—i.e. testimony from her

9

predecessors—that would be admissible.

See

Additionally, if

The Court otherwise finds,

10

contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, Ms. Barnaby’s declaration is

11

consistent with the deposition testimony Plaintiffs submitted.

12

Pls.’ Objections to Barnaby Decl; Barnaby Depo. III.

13

attested to are thus proper grounds for granting summary judgment.

14

See

The facts

In sum, although a jury presented with the totality of the

15

evidence may still find Home Depot liable on the overtime claim—

16

hence, the reason the Court denied summary judgment—Home Depot has

17

presented a good faith defense to such liability.

18

on the section 203 and 226 penalties claims is thus appropriate.

Summary judgment

19
20
21

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Home Depot’s

22

Motion for Summary Judgment.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

September 7, 2017

25
26
27
28
8