Henry Hernandez v. Sysco Corporation

Background

Henry Hernandez brought this wage-and-hour case against his former employer, Sysco Corporation, and Sysco San Francisco, referred to together as “Sysco.” He sued for himself and a proposed class of employees. The court’s earlier class-certification order certified a class for claims involving off-the-clock work during unpaid meal breaks, as well as related pay-statement and final-wages claims. It declined to certify Hernandez’s meal- and rest-break claims because individual issues predominated.

Hernandez alleged that Sysco’s Productivity Policy discouraged some employees, called Selectors, from taking meal and rest breaks. According to Hernandez, the policy required 100 percent productivity, disciplined employees who consistently fell below that goal, and rewarded employees who exceeded it with incentive pay. He argued that employees worked through breaks either to meet the productivity goal or to earn incentive pay.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court allowed Hernandez to seek reconsideration of the class-certification decision. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. Under the court’s local rule for reconsidering an interlocutory order, a party must show a material difference in the facts or law, new material facts or a change in law after the earlier order, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented.

Hernandez argued first that the court had failed to consider expert declarations, including Dr. Fairris’s opinion that Sysco’s productivity arrangements discouraged workers from taking breaks and encouraged off-the-clock work. The court said it had considered that opinion and the possibility that the policy deterred some employees from taking breaks. The court concluded that Hernandez was instead challenging the weight given to the evidence, which is not a proper basis for reconsideration and does not permit a party to reargue the class-certification motion.

Hernandez also argued that the court improperly required him to identify a common method for proving why each employee worked during a meal or rest break. The court rejected that argument. It explained that California law does not automatically prohibit productivity policies. An employer must relieve employees of duty, give up control over their activities, provide a reasonable opportunity for an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break, and not impede or discourage the break.

The court found that Sysco had compliant written meal- and rest-break policies, but also had a policy that incentivized employees to work through breaks. The evidence showed that some employees may have worked through breaks because they could not otherwise complete their work, while other evidence—including Hernandez’s own testimony—suggested that some employees may have done so voluntarily. Hernandez did not show how common evidence could establish that employees worked through breaks because they felt compelled to, rather than because they wanted to.

Ruling

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Hernandez’s motion for reconsideration. The order left in place the earlier decision certifying the off-the-clock-work, pay-statement, and final-wages claims while declining to certify the meal- and rest-break claims. The order disposed of Docket No. 125-1.