Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Charles E. Ward alleged that United Airlines used wage statements for its pilots that did not comply with California Labor Code Section 226. The court had previously certified a class of United pilots who lived in California and paid California income taxes. It later granted summary judgment to United, ruling that the pilots did not work primarily in California and that applying Section 226 to the class would violate the dormant commerce clause, a constitutional limit on state laws that burden interstate commerce.

Appellate Proceedings

The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to answer questions about Section 226’s application to pilots covered by a collective bargaining agreement applying federal law and to pilots who performed most of their work outside California. The California Supreme Court answered that Section 226 applies when an employee’s principal place of work is in California. For interstate transportation workers whose work is not primarily performed in one state, that requirement is met when the worker’s base of work operations is in California. The Ninth Circuit adopted those answers and reversed the earlier dormant-commerce-clause ruling.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine whether United complied with Section 226 and, if not, what relief should be awarded. It instructed the district court to modify the class definition to reflect the California Supreme Court’s test and to extend the class period through the date of judgment.

Modified Class Definition

The court defined the class as:

All pilots employed by United Airlines, Inc., at any time between April 3, 2014, and the time of final judgment, who had or have a designated home-base airport in California during that period and who, during that period, either worked most of their time in California or did not work most of their time in any one state.

The court noted that the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit had indicated that most members of the previously certified class likely satisfied this test. The court also stated that United had not identified even one person who would fall outside the modified class. If United later moves to decertify the class, the order requires it to identify every employee it claims is outside the definition and provide supporting data for each claimed outlier.

Order

The court modified the class definition on remand. It also ordered counsel for both sides to file a joint brief of no more than two pages about next steps for class notice by noon on August 2, 2021. This order did not itself decide whether United violated Section 226 or what relief, if any, should be awarded.