Henry Hernandez v. Sysco Corporation

Background

Henry Hernandez brought California wage-and-hour claims against his former employer, Sysco Corporation and Sysco San Francisco, on behalf of himself and a proposed class. He alleged that Sysco failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, failed to pay wages at the end of employment, and failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. The pending issue was whether those claims could proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

The proposed class involved non-exempt California warehouse selectors who worked for Sysco San Francisco. Selectors used scanning devices to perform warehouse work, and Sysco tracked productivity through a system that set goal times and could affect coaching, discipline, and incentive pay. Hernandez testified that he generally did not receive rest breaks, was discouraged from taking them, and performed work during some unpaid meal breaks.

Evidentiary rulings and standing

The court struck Sysco’s separately filed evidentiary objections because they violated the district’s local rule requiring such objections to be included in the opposition brief. The court also sustained Hernandez’s objection to portions of a Sysco employee’s declaration analyzing a sample of scanning data. The court found that Sysco had not provided an adequate foundation for the analysis and that it appeared to rely on specialized statistical knowledge. The court did not consider that evidence in deciding class certification.

The court found that Hernandez had standing to pursue his meal- and rest-break claims. But it found that he lacked standing to represent employees who allegedly performed work before clocking in. Hernandez testified that he clocked in before performing his work, and he identified no evidence that Sysco failed to pay him for pre-clock-in work. The court therefore did not certify the proposed pre-clock-in theory.

Class-certification analysis

For the meal- and rest-break claims, the court concluded that individual issues predominated. Hernandez’s theory was that Sysco’s productivity plan discouraged selectors from taking full breaks. The court held that deciding liability would require determining why each employee missed or shortened a break—for example, whether the employee feared discipline, sought incentive pay, or chose to keep working for another reason. Hernandez offered scanning data, expert analysis, and witness statements, but he did not provide a method for determining those individual reasons on a class-wide basis. The court therefore denied certification of the meal- and rest-break claims.

The court reached a different conclusion for the narrower off-the-clock claim involving work performed during unpaid meal periods. It held that common questions could determine whether Sysco had a practice of not paying selectors for work performed while clocked out, whether Sysco knew or should have known about that work, and whether Sysco failed to take appropriate action. The court relied on common scanning and payroll records, evidence that Sysco reviewed scanning data for productivity and bonuses, and statistical evidence showing scans during scheduled meal periods. The court stated that the reason an employee worked during the meal period did not need to be decided to establish this claim.

The court found that the requirements for class certification were met for that narrowed claim. It found sufficient numbers of potential class members, common questions, typicality, and adequate representation. The court also found that a class action was the superior method of resolving the claim because the proposed class members had no demonstrated strong interest or incentive to litigate individually, Sysco had not identified manageability concerns requiring individual lawsuits, and collective litigation could reduce concerns about retaliation.

Derivative claims and conclusion

The court certified Hernandez’s related claims under California Labor Code sections 203 and 226 for failure to pay wages at the end of employment and failure to provide accurate pay statements. Those claims were certified as derivative of the narrowed off-the-clock claim. The court declined to resolve Sysco’s argument that those claims failed on the merits because that issue was more appropriate for a later motion for summary judgment, not class certification. The court also rejected Sysco’s argument that the proposed subclasses were impermissibly “fail-safe,” meaning defined in a way that would require establishing liability before determining class membership.

The court granted in part and denied in part Hernandez’s motion for class certification. It granted certification for the claim involving work during unpaid meal periods and the related derivative claims, and denied certification in all other respects. The court appointed Hernandez as class representative and Mallison & Martinez as class counsel. It also ordered the parties to appear for a further case-management conference.