Hakeem v. Transdev Services, Inc.

Background

The court had certified two classes. One covered Transdev employees who underwent mandatory initial drug testing required as a condition of employment. The other covered current and former employees who received blended paycheck stubs. The drug-test class involved claims for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay final wages. Hakeem’s individual drug-test claims also included an unfair-competition claim.

Transdev moved for summary judgment only on the drug-test claims. Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the evidence does not present a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. The evidence submitted with that motion raised questions about whether the drug-test claims were suitable for class treatment. Hakeem testified that, before her initial drug test, she attended a roughly two-hour orientation for which she was paid. Another proposed class member, Aleasha Coleman, stated that she completed unpaid safety orientation and on-the-road training before taking her drug test.

Decertification of the Drug-Test Class

Because the evidence showed potentially important differences among class members’ experiences, the court concluded that the drug-test class no longer satisfied the requirements for class treatment. The court had raised decertification with the parties, and neither side objected. The court therefore decertified the drug-test class and ordered the drug-test claims to proceed only as to Hakeem individually.

The court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to notify the class members that the class had been decertified. The notice had to explain that class members wishing to seek payment for time spent taking their initial drug tests would have to pursue relief on their own. Transdev and class counsel were ordered to split the notice cost, confer about its contents, and submit a proposed notice or competing proposed notices for court review within seven days.

Summary Judgment on Hakeem’s Claims

Hakeem argued that she was entitled to compensation for time spent taking the initial drug test required for employment with Transdev. The court stated that compensation depended on whether she was acting as Transdev’s “employee” when she took the test. Labeling the test “pre-employment” and making employment contingent on passing it did not, by itself, resolve that question.

The court discussed California standards concerning who qualifies as an employee, including whether an entity controls wages, hours, or working conditions; suffers or permits work; or engages someone in a common-law employment relationship. The court also considered guidance concerning tryout work and training. But it found that the evidence concerning Hakeem did not create a genuine factual dispute.

Hakeem had accepted a written offer stating that employment was contingent on successfully completing a pre-employment drug test, along with other conditions. Before the test, her only interaction with Transdev was the approximately two-hour orientation, during which a human-resources representative described the job, provided licensing materials and instructions, and told her where to take the test. The court held that no reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that Hakeem was acting as a Transdev employee when she took the test. The court also found that the specified testing time, date, place, and scope, and the later request for a second test after the first was diluted, did not change the result. The court granted Transdev’s motion for summary judgment as to Hakeem’s individual drug-test claims.

Remaining Claim and Other Rulings

The blended-paycheck class remained intact. The court stated that the parties would address how to adjudicate that claim at a further case-management conference scheduled for June 2, 2021.

The court denied Transdev’s evidentiary objections and granted Hakeem’s request for judicial notice. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on April 27, 2021.