McElroy v. Vitalant

Background

Kim J. McElroy, a former Vitalant employee, sued Vitalant in California state court on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. The complaint asserted eleven causes of action under California wage-and-hour laws and the California Business and Professions Code. Vitalant removed the case to federal court and, after answering the amended complaint, moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In the alternative, Vitalant moved to strike under Rules 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D).

Legal standard

The court explained that judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) uses essentially the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The question was whether the complaint alleged enough facts that, if accepted as true, would make the claimed violations plausible. Conclusory statements and formulaic recitations of legal elements were insufficient.

Analysis

Meal and rest periods

McElroy alleged that Vitalant had a common policy and practice of denying meal and rest breaks because of understaffing, heavy workloads, uncompensated pre-shift duties, Covid-19 testing and vaccinations, and communications with supervisors. The court found these allegations too vague. McElroy did not identify a specific instance when she was denied a meal or rest break, explain how often breaks were denied, identify who denied them, or describe what work she had to perform during the time she should have been off duty.

Hourly and overtime wages

McElroy alleged that Vitalant required unpaid tasks, including Covid-19 testing and vaccinations, shift preparation, work assisting Shift Team Leaders, weekly training, and weekend physical examinations for Department of Transportation licensing. She alleged that these tasks caused her and the putative class members to work beyond daily and weekly overtime thresholds.

The court held that these allegations did not provide enough detail to support an inference that she worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime pay. The complaint did not adequately describe how often the extra work was required, how long it took, or McElroy’s regular work schedule. The minimum-wage claim also failed because the complaint did not state when or for how long the tasks were performed or identify facts supporting an inference that she worked during at least one workweek without being paid.

Other non-derivative claims

The court found insufficient allegations supporting McElroy’s claim that Vitalant failed to pay for time spent waiting to be assigned work. She did not identify a specific instance when she or another person was required to report but was not put to work. Her vacation-pay claim likewise alleged an illegal policy without facts substantiating that the policy existed or applied to her.

The expense-reimbursement claim failed because McElroy did not identify a specific instance when she incurred expenses for items such as medical scrubs, personal protective equipment, or medical examinations at Vitalant’s direction. Her pay-card claim also failed because she did not allege that she was denied an opportunity to access her wages without paying a fee.

Derivative claims and representative action

The court treated claims six, seven, ten, and eleven as derivative, meaning they depended on the underlying wage-and-hour claims. Claim six alleged inaccurate wage statements; claim seven alleged untimely payment of final wages; claim ten alleged unfair competition; and claim eleven sought to pursue a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act. Because the underlying wage claims were insufficiently pleaded, the court held that these derivative claims also failed.

Disposition

The court granted Vitalant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. McElroy was given leave to amend to cure the identified pleading deficiencies, and any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order. The court denied Vitalant’s motion to strike as moot. The hearing scheduled for October 2, 2025, was vacated.