Bush v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC

Background

Christiana Bush brought a proposed class action against Vaco Technology Services, LLC (VTS) and Google, LLC, alleging wage-and-hour violations. The complaint had already gone through three rounds of motions to dismiss and amendments. In an earlier order, the court concluded that Bush’s proposed classes were too broad because her factual allegations focused on her own experiences and duties at Google. The court allowed the case to continue only with narrowed classes covering people working at Google in three roles Bush had held: Expedition Team Leader, Order Audit Operation Specialist, and Content Bug Technician.

The Fourth Amended Complaint proposed three nationwide classes and four California subclasses. In briefing, Bush withdrew the national Order Audit Operation Specialist and Content Bug Technician claims, leaving the Google Expedition Class as the only remaining nationwide class; the defendants did not challenge that class. The motion addressed only the California subclasses for Order Audit Operation Specialists and Content Bug Technicians.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants argued that the two subclasses were overbroad for two reasons. First, they challenged the inclusion of people employed through “any staffing agencies,” arguing that the court had previously rejected claims involving staffing agencies other than VTS. Second, they argued that the proposed definitions were unclear because they used job duties rather than precise job titles.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the staffing-agency argument. It explained that the Fourth Amended Complaint pursued a joint-employer theory against Google. Under that theory, a worker may be employed by more than one entity at the same time, and Google’s potential liability was not necessarily limited to people hired through VTS. It could potentially extend to people hired through another staffing agency or directly by Google.

The court also rejected the challenge to the class definitions. Although the definitions used job duties instead of job titles, the court found them sufficiently definite to proceed beyond the pleading stage. The definitions were not so vague or ambiguous that the defendants could not reasonably respond to the complaint or participate in discovery. The court stated that discovery could further refine the precise duties and titles of potential class members, and that additional objections to the definitions could be raised during class-certification proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Strike Class Claims from the Fourth Amended Complaint. The challenged California subclass claims therefore remained in the case at this stage.