Wilson v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.

Background

Two California-based flight attendants, Wilson and Becker, sued SkyWest Airlines, Inc. under California law. They asserted three California Labor Code claims concerning meal breaks, rest breaks, and wage statements, plus three derivative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). SkyWest moved for summary judgment on all claims, and the plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment on liability.

Federal preemption and interstate-commerce claims

The court denied SkyWest’s motion for summary judgment on federal preemption and the dormant Commerce Clause. It held that California’s meal- and rest-break requirements were not displaced by the Airline Deregulation Act or the Federal Aviation Act. It also held that applying California’s meal-break, rest-break, and wage-statement laws to SkyWest’s California-based flight attendants did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, which limits certain state laws that excessively burden interstate commerce.

The court concluded that SkyWest had not shown that complying with these California requirements imposed the kind of substantial burden that would trigger the constitutional restriction. It noted that California law allows employers to seek exemptions from rest-break requirements in some circumstances and permits written agreements for on-duty meal periods when the nature of the work prevents employees from being relieved of all duties. The court also stated that SkyWest did not contend that it had complied with the meal- and rest-break requirements, and that the plaintiffs had submitted evidence that they received neither the required breaks nor additional pay.

The plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment was therefore granted on SkyWest’s liability for the meal- and rest-break claims.

Wage-statement claim

The court granted SkyWest’s motion as to the California Labor Code section 226 wage-statement claim. The court assumed, without deciding, that SkyWest’s wage statements did not comply with California law. It nevertheless held that the plaintiffs could not recover because section 226 requires a “knowing and intentional” failure to comply.

The court interpreted that requirement as requiring willfulness and held that a good-faith belief in compliance defeats liability. SkyWest established a good-faith defense based on then-existing legal decisions concerning the application of California labor laws to interstate airline workers. SkyWest also had a good-faith belief that listing the plaintiffs’ credit hours complied with section 226 because those hours were more closely tied to compensation. The plaintiffs submitted no evidence showing that SkyWest was not acting in good faith.

Waiting-time claim

The court granted SkyWest’s motion as to the waiting-time claim under California Labor Code sections 201 and 202. Those provisions impose a penalty when an employer willfully fails to pay wages when an employee leaves employment. The court held that SkyWest did not willfully withhold meal- or rest-break premium wages from Wilson and Becker because it reasonably relied on preemption and dormant-Commerce-Clause defenses. Although the Ninth Circuit had rejected those defenses, they were still legal defenses that created a good-faith dispute about whether the wages were owed.

Reserve-period on-call time

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on whether reserve-period on-call time counted as “hours worked” for purposes of meal and rest breaks. The relevant question is the extent of the employer’s control over the employee’s time. The court identified facts supporting both sides: Wilson and Becker could engage in personal activities and trade shifts, but they had to report to San Francisco International Airport within two hours of a call. Wilson stayed at a SkyWest crash pad during reserve periods, and Becker asserted that traffic and unreliable public transportation made it difficult to leave while still meeting the reporting requirement.

Because the facts pointed in different directions, the court held that a reasonable jury could find either that SkyWest exercised enough control to make the reserve time compensable work time or that it did not. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate on that issue. The court did not decide whether, if the reserve time counted as hours worked, California law separately required meal and rest breaks during that time.

Disposition

SkyWest’s motion for summary judgment was denied with respect to federal preemption and the dormant Commerce Clause, granted as to the section 226 wage-statement claim and the sections 201 and 202 waiting-time claim, and otherwise addressed as stated in the order. The plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment was granted on liability for the meal- and rest-break claims and the derivative PAGA and UCL claims, and denied on whether reserve-period on-call time counted as hours worked for meal- and rest-break purposes.