Durham v. Sachs Electric Company

Background

William Durham brought a California wage-and-hour class action and a representative claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. He alleged that Sachs Electric Company employed workers at the California Flats Solar Project and required them to meet at parking lots before the scheduled start of work, wait for their crews, and ride company buggies to their work sites without being paid for that time. He also alleged that Sachs required workers to remain at their job sites during the workday, including meal periods.

Durham sought certification of two unpaid-wage classes and two subclasses. The proposed claims included unpaid wages, wage-statement and record-keeping violations, termination or waiting-time pay, reimbursement, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The proposed subclasses covered workers whose employment ended during the relevant period and workers who received wage statements during the relevant period.

Both sides submitted employee declarations and company policies. Durham submitted declarations describing a practice of requiring workers to meet 10 to 15 minutes before the scheduled start time and remain at the work site during meal periods. Sachs submitted declarations stating that workers arrived at the buggies at the scheduled start time, were paid for buggy travel, and could use meal periods as they wished. Sachs also relied on written policies that addressed work hours, work areas, and buggy travel.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It considered whether the proposed class was sufficiently numerous, shared common legal or factual questions, had claims typical of the class, and had an adequate representative. It also considered whether common questions predominated over individual issues and whether a class action was superior to other ways of resolving the dispute.

The court found that the buggy-time class met the Rule 23 requirements. Durham alleged that more than 768 employees worked at the project during the proposed class period, satisfying the numerosity requirement. The court identified common questions about whether Sachs had a uniform policy requiring unpaid buggy rides before the scheduled start time, whether the buggy time was legally compensable work time, and whether Sachs uniformly paid workers for that time.

The court also found Durham’s claims typical of the proposed class and concluded that Durham and his counsel could adequately represent the class. It rejected Sachs’s argument that counsel faced a conflict because they also represented potential class members in a related case. The court determined that the buggy-time theory depended on whether a uniform policy existed, so conflicting employee declarations did not defeat predominance. It also found that a class action was the superior method because individual recoveries were relatively small and many workers might otherwise abandon their claims.

The court did not certify the meal-period class or related subclasses. It stated that it had already dismissed Durham’s claims to the extent they were based on meal-period violations, so it denied as moot the request to certify those classes. The court’s class-certification ruling addressed whether the claims could proceed on a class basis, not whether Sachs was ultimately liable.

Order

The court’s order granted in part and denied in part Durham’s motion for class certification. It denied as moot certification of the Unpaid Wages Class based on the Meal Period Time Claim. It granted certification of the Unpaid Wages Class based on the Buggy Time Claim, the Termination Pay Subclass, and the Wage Statement Subclass, for wage-and-hour claims under the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law.

The certified Buggy Time Class covered non-exempt Sachs employees who worked on construction of the California Flats Solar Project from July 25, 2014, through the date of class certification, and who were not paid for specified time spent waiting for and traveling between the parking lots and daily work sites. The Termination Pay Subclass covered members of the Buggy Time Class whose employment ended from July 25, 2015, through the date of class certification. The Wage Statement Subclass covered members of the Buggy Time Class who received wage statements from July 25, 2017, through the date of class certification.

The court appointed William Durham as class representative and appointed the Dion-Kindem Law Firm and the Blanchard Law Group, APC as co-class counsel. The order also noted that the stay on the Drive Time claims had been lifted and that Durham intended to seek certification related to those claims in a later motion.