Meek v. Skywest, Inc.

Background

Cody Meek, Jeremy Barnes, and Coryell Ross sought certification of classes consisting of current and former hourly, ground-based “Frontline Employees” of SkyWest Airlines, Inc. and SkyWest, Inc. who worked at least one shift in California between February 27, 2013, and October 18, 2020. They sought certification of California-law claims concerning an early clock-in “grace period,” meal and rest breaks, and derivative claims for termination-related waiting-time penalties and relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The proposed class included more than 1,700 Frontline Employees. The plaintiffs proceeded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which permits class treatment when common issues predominate over individual issues and a class action is superior to other methods of resolving the dispute. Counts III and VII had already been resolved for defendants on summary judgment, so those counts were moot for purposes of class certification.

Class-certification analysis

The court found numerosity satisfied because more than 1,700 employees were involved and SkyWest did not contest that requirement. It also found typicality and adequacy satisfied. Although SkyWest argued that the named plaintiffs had worked only as ramp agents while the proposed class covered 12 formal job classifications, the court concluded that the proposed class members allegedly suffered similar injuries from the same or similar conduct. The court also rejected SkyWest’s argument that including supervisors created a conflict because the claims were directed at SkyWest, not individual supervisors.

Count I: early clock-in or grace-period claim

Certification was denied for the claim that employees were not paid for time between clocking in and their scheduled start time. The court distinguished a time-rounding policy from a grace-period policy. In the court’s view, SkyWest’s policy was a voluntary grace period, and determining whether employees were entitled to pay required individualized factual inquiries into whether each employee was actually working or was under SkyWest’s control during that period.

The court also found that the evidence did not establish commonality. Only 25 of 42 plaintiff-submitted declarations mentioned the issue, and most used general language without factual detail. Cody Meek provided more detail about beginning work after clocking in, but SkyWest submitted evidence that other employees clocked in early without working. The court concluded that individual inquiries would be necessary and that the grace-period claims were not capable of classwide resolution.

Count II: meal-period claims

The court found commonality and predominance satisfied for the meal-period claims. California law requires employers to provide qualifying employees with uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods during which they are relieved of duty and employer control. Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, an employer’s records showing no meal period for a shift longer than five hours create a rebuttable presumption that no compliant meal period was provided.

The plaintiffs submitted time records, an expert analysis, and 43 declarations describing missed, late, shortened, or interrupted meal periods. SkyWest’s own evidence described operational conditions in which employee breaks were affected by flight schedules, staffing, weather, mechanical problems, and other events. The court concluded that the evidence showed a common pattern and practice affecting the class and that common issues would predominate over individual ones. The court also noted SkyWest’s concession that it did not dispute having a practice of not paying meal-period premiums.

Count II: rest-break claims

The court likewise found commonality and predominance satisfied for the rest-break claims. Employees did not clock in and out for rest breaks, so there were no comparable time records. But declarations from both sides described rest breaks as missed, shortened, delayed, unscheduled, or dependent on operational needs. SkyWest also conceded that it did not pay rest-period premiums for missed, late, or shortened rest breaks.

The court rejected SkyWest’s argument that employees’ work locations defeated commonality. The declarations showed a consistent company culture, and the expert’s analysis covered data from 15 California airports. The court therefore found that common questions predominated.

Derivative claims

The court certified the derivative claims without further analysis to the extent they relied on the certified meal-period and rest-break claims. These claims concerned waiting-time penalties for allegedly unpaid wages at termination and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Certified classes and other rulings

The court certified four classes:

The court appointed Meek, Barnes, and Ross as class representatives and their counsel at Greg Coleman Law PC, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as class counsel. The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a proposed notice-distribution plan by October 29, 2021, after meeting and conferring with SkyWest. The parties were also directed to contact Magistrate Judge Hixson for another settlement conference.

The court denied the administrative motion to seal. SkyWest had designated underlying documents as confidential, but it did not submit the required responsive declaration under the local rule. The plaintiffs were directed to file unredacted copies on the electronic docket within the stated four-to-ten-day period. The order was signed by the court.