Durham v. Sachs Electric Company

Background

This wage-and-hour class action arose from work at the California Flats Solar Project. William Durham alleged that Sachs Electric Company required workers to report to a security entrance, wait for and undergo security procedures, and travel on a restricted access road to parking lots before reaching their work areas. He alleged that workers were not paid for the security time or the travel time, which generally took 45 minutes or more each way.

Durham sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) of three classes and two subclasses. The proposed claims concerned unpaid wages under California Labor Code section 1197, wage-statement and record-keeping violations under section 226, waiting-time wages under section 203, expense reimbursement under section 2802, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The opinion also notes that Durham separately brought a representative claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act.

Rule 23 Requirements

The court found that Durham satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Approximately 450 people worked as Sachs employees at the project during the relevant period, making it impracticable to join everyone in one lawsuit. The court identified common questions about whether security time and travel time counted as compensable “hours worked” under California law and whether the security gate was the first location where employees were required to be present under Wage Order 16.

The court also found that Durham’s claims were typical of the proposed class members’ claims because they arose from the same alleged security and travel policies. It found no conflict between Durham, his counsel, and the proposed class. The court further concluded that common questions predominated over individual issues and that a class action was superior because individual recoveries were relatively small and many class members might otherwise abandon their claims.

Changes to the Class Definitions

The court excluded employees who rode the bus from the three unpaid-wages classes. It found insufficient evidence about bus riders’ security procedures, required reporting location, and exposure to the project’s road rules. It also questioned whether Durham could represent bus riders because the opinion contains no evidence that he rode the bus.

The court allowed carpoolers to remain in the three unpaid-wages classes. It found sufficient evidence that carpoolers were subject to the same security procedures and access-road restrictions as employees who drove alone.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part Durham’s motion for class certification. It certified the Unpaid Wages Class (Security Time), the Unpaid Wages Class (Controlled Travel Time), the Unpaid Wages Class (Paragraph 5(A) Travel Time), the Termination Pay Subclass, and the Wage Statement Subclass, with definitions excluding bus riders. The certified issues include whether security time and travel time were compensable hours worked and whether the security gate was the first location where employees were required to be present under Wage Order 16.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman appointed William Durham as class representative and appointed the Dion-Kindem Law Firm and the Blanchard Law Group, APC as co-class counsel. The court also directed counsel to meet and confer about notice and submit a written proposal by September 15, 2021.