Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation

Background

The court addressed one remaining discovery dispute after a March 31, 2020 hearing. Plaintiffs wanted to ask deposition questions about the cost of full-time employee benefits, identified as Topic 65. They argued that the information was relevant to compensation they might recover as restitution under California’s unfair-competition law.

The operative complaint alleged multiple labor-law violations, including missed meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime and minimum wages, untimely wage payments, unreimbursed employment expenses, inaccurate wage statements, and violations of California Labor Code sections 850 and 851. Sections 850 and 851 set maximum working hours for certain pharmacy employees and prohibit employers from requiring or permitting work beyond those limits.

Parties’ positions

Plaintiffs argued that Defendants’ understaffing caused some pharmacy employees to work more than the lawful maximum while causing other employees, including Plaintiff Duhon, to receive fewer hours and lose benefits associated with full-time work. Plaintiffs contended that the cost of those benefits was discoverable as part of their alleged compensation-related loss.

Defendants argued that full-time benefits were not relevant to any claim or defense. They also argued that sections 850 and 851 regulate excessive hours, not an employer’s failure to schedule employees for full-time work or provide full-time benefits.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that discovery generally covers nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense. It concluded that sections 850 and 851 guarantee that covered pharmacy employees will not be required to work excessive hours; they do not guarantee a minimum number of work hours or benefits associated with full-time employment. The court therefore found that the requested benefit-cost information was not relevant to plaintiffs’ unfair-competition claim based on those Labor Code sections.

The court did not decide whether full-time benefits can qualify as compensation or restitution in an overtime-related claim, stating that the discovery was not relevant to any of plaintiffs’ claims.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ request to take deposition testimony about the cost of full-time employee benefits. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order on April 29, 2020.