Bryan et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al

Filing 523

JURY INSTRUCTION - RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTION RE CONTROL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/22/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES RIDGEWAY, ET AL.,

Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

JURY INSTRUCTION - RESPONSE TO
JURY QUESTION RE: CONTROL

9
10

WAL-MART STORES INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

There is no clear definition of “control” in the California Labor Code. The cases from the

14

California courts have stated that the level of the employer’s control over its employees, rather

15

than the mere fact that the employer requires the employee’s activity, is determinative. To

16

determine if a driver was subject to Wal-Mart’s control during the layover, you must determine

17

whether the driver was able to use that time effectively for his or her own purposes.

18
19

I will give you two examples from other cases. These involve different factual situations,
and may be helpful as guidance only.

20

When an employer directs, commands or restrains an employee from leaving the work

21

place during his or her lunch hour, and thus prevents the employee from using the time effectively

22

for his or her own purposes, the employee remains subject to the employer’s control.

23

When agricultural worker employees were required by their employer to meet at

24

designated places to take the employer’s buses to work and were prohibited from taking their own

25

transportation, the employees were subject to the control of their employer, although they could

26

read on the bus or perform other personal activities.

27
28