Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC

Background

Michael Ortiz asserted individual claims against Amazon.com LLC and Golden State FC, LLC, which the opinion collectively calls Amazon. He alleged that Amazon violated California’s Labor Code and Wage Order 7-2001 by failing to pay him overtime and provide required rest and meal breaks. He also asserted a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, a law that allows an aggrieved employee to seek civil penalties for certain labor-law violations.

Ortiz worked for Amazon from February 1, 2016, until December 11, 2016, as a Level 4 Shift Manager for the night shift at three delivery stations. Amazon classified Level 4 Shift Managers as exempt employees and paid Ortiz an annual salary of $68,500. Ortiz testified that he regularly worked between 44 and 48 hours per week, sometimes took lunch breaks, and did not take rest breaks. The court found that he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.

Amazon relied on California’s executive exemption. The court had previously determined on summary judgment that Amazon established five of the exemption’s six elements. The remaining issue was whether Ortiz was primarily engaged in exempt managerial duties. Under the applicable regulation, “primarily” means more than half of an employee’s work time.

Trial Evidence and Findings

The court found that Ortiz performed substantial managerial work. He managed a team of approximately 80 to 100 employees, conducted meetings, coached associates, monitored operational data, prepared shift handoff information, helped allocate labor, addressed problems, developed process improvements, and helped improve the performance of one delivery station.

Ortiz also performed physical tasks that Tier 1 Associates performed, including unloading trucks, moving pallets, and sorting packages. The court credited his testimony that he performed some of this work but did not credit his testimony about how much time he spent on it. The court found the testimony of Marc Lopez and Mahmoud Abdelaziz more credible on that issue. The court also considered testimony from other shift managers, who described manual work as limited or as serving training or motivational purposes.

The court concluded that Ortiz did not spend more than half of his time on nonexempt tasks. It also found that some of his work in the package-processing area served a managerial or motivational purpose and was therefore directly and closely related to management. The court considered Amazon’s job description as persuasive, but not conclusive, evidence of the work expected from a Level 4 Shift Manager.

Conclusions of Law

California places the burden on the employer to prove an overtime exemption by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the evidence must show that the exemption is more likely than not satisfied. The executive exemption required Amazon to establish, among other things, that Ortiz managed a recognized department or subdivision, regularly directed at least two employees, had recommendations about employee status given particular weight, exercised discretion and independent judgment, was primarily engaged in exempt duties, and received the required salary.

The court found that Amazon had already established the other elements and, based on the trial evidence, proved the remaining “primarily engaged” element. It held that Ortiz was subject to the executive exemption throughout the relevant period and was not entitled to overtime or rest and meal periods. Because Ortiz did not prevail on his individual claims, the court concluded that he was not an aggrieved employee for purposes of his Private Attorneys General Act claim.

Disposition

Ortiz and Amazon each moved for judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), a procedure allowing judgment on an issue after a party has been fully heard during a nonjury trial. The court denied both parties’ motions for judgment on partial findings. After making its findings and conclusions, the court found in favor of Amazon and against Ortiz, ordered that a separate judgment be entered, and directed the Clerk to close the file.