Suarez v. Bank of America N.A.

Background

Arianna Suarez brought a proposed class action against her former employer, Bank of America Corporation, alleging California wage-and-hour violations. The motion at issue concerned claim six, alleging that the bank failed to pay final wages on time, and claim eight, alleging that the bank failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The parties had settled Suarez’s individual discrimination, harassment, and wrongful-termination claims, which made the bank’s motion as to those claims moot.

Suarez worked for Bank of America until her employment ended on September 27, 2017. She conceded that the bank paid her accrued vacation wages when her employment ended. She also testified that she had access to electronic wage statements, reviewed at least some of them, but did not closely examine them or try to calculate wages she believed she was owed.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment must be granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact is one that could affect the result, and a genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to rule for the nonmoving party.

Claim six: final wages

Suarez alleged that Bank of America willfully failed to pay her final wages as required by California Labor Code sections 201 through 203. The court granted summary judgment in part to the extent claim six was based on vacation pay, because Suarez conceded that those wages had been paid.

The court otherwise denied the motion on claim six. Suarez argued that factual disputes remained about whether the bank acted willfully when it failed to pay meal-and-rest-break amounts. The court explained that “willfully” means intentionally failing or refusing to pay a wage obligation, but that a good-faith defense can prevent waiting-time penalties. The court declined to revisit its earlier conclusion that meal-and-rest-break premiums may qualify as wages for this purpose, particularly because fact discovery was not complete and the parties provided little new briefing.

Claim eight: wage statements

Suarez alleged that Bank of America’s wage statements did not accurately show information required by California Labor Code section 226, including hours worked and wages earned. To obtain damages under section 226, an employee must show an inaccurate statement, a knowing and intentional violation, and injury.

The court granted summary judgment in part because the one-year statute of limitations barred a claim for statutory penalties based on wage statements received before the one-year period. The court stated that Suarez’s claim accrued on January 10, 2018, making January 11, 2017, the beginning of the relevant look-back period. Suarez did not address the limitations argument in her opposition and, in response to the court’s questions at the hearing, submitted the issue on the papers. The court said this appeared to dispose of the entire statutory-damages claim, given that her last day in the office was October 21, 2016, although the formal ruling was that the limitations period barred the statutory-penalties claim to that extent.

The court otherwise denied the motion on claim eight. It rejected the bank’s argument that Suarez’s failure to calculate her lost wages necessarily defeated the claim. The court explained that injury can include the possibility of not being paid overtime, confusion about whether all wages were paid, or difficulty and expense in reconstructing pay records; mathematical calculations are only one way to show injury. The court also declined to revisit its earlier rejection of the bank’s arguments that it needed to report only wages actually paid and that its alleged violations were not knowing and intentional.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler granted Bank of America’s motion for partial summary judgment in part on claim six, to the extent that claim was based on vacation pay the bank undisputedly paid, and on claim eight, to the extent the one-year statute of limitations barred statutory penalties. The court otherwise denied the motion and stated that the order disposed of the motion at ECF No. 68.