Troyer v. The Yerba Mate Co., LLP

Background

Casey Troyer worked for The Yerba Mate Co. as a delivery driver called a “hacedor” from December 2019 through August 2020. The company classified hacedores uniformly as exempt outside salespeople under California law. Troyer alleged that he and similarly situated employees worked more than eight hours a day without legally required meal and rest breaks, were not paid overtime, and were owed related wage-statement and waiting-time penalties.

The hacedores used company vehicles to deliver yerba mate beverages to retailers. A team of company employees in Florida created their daily routes through the Encompass application. The routes were designed to be completed in about eight hours, and hacedores were required to complete every stop. Their work included contacting retailer representatives, recommending and recording sales, preparing invoices, unloading and arranging products, delivering pre-ordered products, depositing sales proceeds, and performing warehouse and vehicle-related tasks.

The company paid hacedores a flat salary that did not vary based on hours worked or the number of drinks sold. They did not receive overtime or commissions. The Encompass application recorded information about their activities, including times, locations, customers, invoices, and route information.

Troyer also alleged that the company violated California Penal Code Section 632 by recording a confidential conversation among Troyer and several coworkers at the company’s warehouse.

Class-certification standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy four requirements: enough members that individual lawsuits would be impractical, common legal or factual questions, claims typical of the class, and adequate representation. For a class under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual questions, and a class action must be the superior way to resolve the dispute.

Outside-salesperson classification

California’s outside-salesperson exemption applies to an employee who customarily and regularly spends more than half of working time away from the employer’s place of business selling products or obtaining orders or contracts. The court explained that California’s test focuses on the employee’s actual work time and the realistic requirements and expectations of the job.

The court found the classification issue suitable for classwide proof. It relied on evidence that the company created and controlled the hacedores’ routes, required them to follow those routes and complete every stop, and gave them substantially uniform duties and work experiences. The court also found that the Encompass application contained common data that could be used to measure individual employees’ time spent on different tasks.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that variations in the time required for particular tasks defeated predominance. Although employees could spend different amounts of time preparing invoices, unloading products, restocking, or completing other tasks, the court found that the tasks and overall job requirements were sufficiently uniform. It also concluded that the Encompass data provided a common method for determining which class members might satisfy or fail the applicable time-based exemption test.

Rulings

The court certified this class: delivery-driver hacedores like Troyer who were classified as exempt from overtime under California’s outside-salesperson exemption from April 6, 2016, through July 21, 2020. Certification applies solely to the classification question at this stage.

The court held certification of the underlying wage-and-hour claims in abeyance. Those claims include meal-period, rest-break, overtime, wage-statement, and waiting-time claims. The opinion stated that the court would revisit certification after becoming better informed about the details of proving classwide overtime damages.

The court denied certification of the unlawful-recording claim. Under California Penal Code Section 632, lack of consent is not enough by itself; the plaintiff must also show that, under the specific circumstances, the speaker had an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation would not be overheard or recorded. The court identified potentially individualized factors such as the number of people present, how loudly an employee spoke, and whether the employee had reason to suspect that warehouse cameras recorded audio.

The court appointed Troyer as class representative and Yoon Law, APC as class counsel. It ordered the parties to file a joint proposed class notice, distribution plan, and opt-out timeline within two weeks.