Wynn v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Brittany Wynn brought three claims against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) arising from her brief employment: a claim for failure to pay sick time under California Labor Code section 246, a claim for failure to reimburse business expenses under section 2802, and a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law based on the first two claims. UPS moved to dismiss each claim and to strike the proposed class allegations.

The opinion says Wynn alleged that she worked for UPS from approximately November 4, 2020, through approximately March 28, 2021. The court also considered payroll records submitted by Wynn. The opinion discusses a separate, court-approved settlement involving UPS drivers, called the Augustine Action. The parties did not appear to dispute that Wynn was not a member of that settlement class.

Judicial Notice

UPS asked the court to take judicial notice of 15 exhibits. The court denied the request as to Exhibits 7 through 11, which were collective bargaining agreements that were not in effect during Wynn’s employment. The court granted the request as to Exhibits 1 through 6 and 12 through 15, but stated that it was not taking notice of the truth of facts asserted in those documents.

Claim One: Sick Time

The court granted UPS’s motion to dismiss Claim One with leave to amend. California Labor Code section 246 requires an employee to work for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the start of employment to qualify for the statutory paid-sick-time entitlement. The court found that Wynn alleged only the period of her employment, not that she worked at least 30 days. The court instructed that an amended complaint must allege that she worked 30 or more days within the required period.

Because the court dismissed Claim One on that ground, it did not address UPS’s other arguments. It denied UPS’s motion to strike the class allegations for Claim One as moot.

Claim Two: Reimbursement

The court granted in part and denied in part UPS’s motion to dismiss Claim Two, with leave to amend. Wynn alleged unreimbursed expenses including steel-toed boots, uniforms, masks, personal cell phones, and vehicles used for work. The court found that she sufficiently stated a reimbursement claim for a phone used to communicate with management, so it denied dismissal as to that expense. It granted dismissal as to all other alleged expenses because Wynn had not sufficiently alleged that she incurred them as a condition of employment. The court allowed amendment of those allegations.

The court granted UPS’s motion to strike the class allegations for Claim Two with leave to amend. It found the proposed reimbursement class too broad and noted unresolved issues concerning the effect of the Augustine settlement on the proposed class. The court directed counsel to conduct a thorough investigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 before amending the individual claims or class allegations.

Claim Three: Unfair Competition Law

The court granted UPS’s motion to dismiss Claim Three without leave to amend. Wynn sought relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law based on Claims One and Two. The court held that she could not seek an injunction against UPS’s employment practices because she was not currently employed by UPS. It therefore found that it lacked equitable jurisdiction to hear the claim. The court denied UPS’s motion to strike the class allegations for Claim Three as moot.

Disposition

The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 30 days after entry of the order. Wynn could amend only in ways consistent with the order, and could not add claims or parties without the court’s permission. The overall classification is procedural because the order’s operative rulings were on motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and on class allegations, rather than a final merits determination of the claims.