Bourgeois v. Health

Procedural posture

The court had conducted a three-day bench trial from August 5 through August 7, 2025. At the end of trial, it told the parties that the record needed additional information, particularly concerning their damages calculations. This order provided preliminary impressions to help the parties submit more detailed calculations. The court also anticipated requesting amended proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The order did not enter final findings, conclusions, or judgment.

California law

The central dispute was whether California law applied to Bourgeois’s claims. Bourgeois argued that California law should apply when most of her work or work-related travel occurred in California. Pentec argued that Pennsylvania law, where Pentec is headquartered, or Texas law, where Bourgeois resides, should apply. The court noted that California provides daily overtime and meal and rest periods, while the laws of Texas and Pennsylvania differ in the ways described in the order.

Applying California’s governmental-interest approach to choice of law, the court said the issue depended on the nature and extent of Bourgeois’s work in California during the relevant period. Based on the trial evidence, the court was inclined to apply California law for each day or week when Bourgeois spent most of her time in California, even if part of that day or week was spent outside the state. The court said it would consider all of her daily and weekly work hours for overtime purposes during those periods, not only the hours worked in California.

Travel time

The court was likely to conclude that at least some of Bourgeois’s travel into, out of, and within California was compensable work time. The trial evidence indicated that Pentec controlled her assignments, sent her across the country to provide in-home patient care, and that she generally traveled during normal business hours with limited freedom to engage in other activities. The court viewed this travel as integral to her work as a travel nurse.

The court was still considering how to treat travel between Bourgeois’s hotel and the first or last patient on days worked entirely in California. It also noted that time spent actually working while traveling by plane was likely compensable.

Preparation time

The court indicated that Bourgeois was likely entitled to compensation for at least some preparation time, including charting and picking up medications. The evidence suggested that this work was important to caring for patients and was often performed at her hotel before or after patient appointments.

The court viewed loading and unloading her vehicle and mapping routes differently. It said that this logistical work was either several steps removed from treating patients and therefore not a principal work activity, or too minor to be compensable.

Administrative exemption

Pentec argued that California’s administrative exemption applied while Bourgeois trained other nurses, known as precepting, and therefore excluded that time from overtime and meal- and-rest-period requirements. The court did not state a final conclusion on the exemption. It discussed evidence supporting Pentec’s position, including that Bourgeois’s patient census was transferred to the nurse she was training, that she mainly observed and gave feedback, that precepting involved paperwork and training materials, and that she exercised broad discretion without day-to-day supervision.

The court also noted Bourgeois’s testimony that her precepting duties continued to involve patient care. It explained that the same task may be exempt or nonexempt depending on the purpose it serves within the organization.

Meal and rest breaks

The court was not likely to find that Pentec denied Bourgeois meal or rest breaks. The evidence indicated that Bourgeois controlled her schedule and could, and did, schedule her own breaks and meals. The court said that late-night paperwork did not necessarily show that she missed breaks during the day or that Pentec should have known about missed breaks. It also noted that there was no evidence that Pentec pressured her to skip meal or rest periods.

Settlement offers

The court was not likely to find that Pentec made qualifying settlement offers under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The court questioned whether Pentec’s 2023 offer was reasonable because it was made before discovery and before Bourgeois could reasonably evaluate it, particularly because Pentec had not kept time records and Bourgeois had to reconstruct her time.

The court also questioned whether Pentec’s 2024 offer satisfied Rule 68 because it sought dismissal with prejudice rather than entry of judgment against Pentec. The parties had submitted simultaneous briefs on that issue and therefore had not responded to each other’s arguments.

Further proceedings

The parties were directed to meet and confer and file a joint status report by September 15, 2026. The report must address the timing and form of supplemental filings and the status of any renewed settlement discussions. The court also noted that the parties had previously attended a settlement conference with Judge Westmore and might return for another conference before final findings and conclusions were issued. The order stated that a further case management conference would be held by public video webinar.