Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

This certified class action concerns alleged deficiencies in wage statements provided to United Airlines pilots. The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment, and United sought summary judgment. The opinion states that the court granted in part and denied in part both motions.

The case concerns California Labor Code section 226, which requires an employer to provide an accurate, itemized written wage statement. The certified class, as modified on remand, included United pilots employed during the covered period who had a designated home-base airport in California and either worked a majority of their time in California or did not work a majority of their time in any one state.

United paid pilots twice each month. The first payment, called a Flight Advance, was based on an estimate of the hours United expected the pilot to work during the bid period. The second payment reflected the difference between that advance and the pilot’s total compensation, plus certain additional pay. The Pay Advice did not list the estimated hours used for the Flight Advance or identify which of three compensation measures was used for the second payment. The online Pay Register contained additional information.

What Documents Counted as the Wage Statement

The court held that United’s wage statement had to be a single document provided as a detachable part of the employee’s check. The Pay Advice was the wage statement because it was the only document accompanying the pilots’ paychecks. United could not combine the Pay Advice with the separate Pay Register, or rely on the collective bargaining agreement, to satisfy section 226.

Claims Concerning Hours and Rates

Sections 226(a)(2) and 226(a)(9) require wage statements to include total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each rate. The court found that United’s Pay Advice did not provide this information. The court rejected United’s arguments that the complexity of its pilot-pay system excused compliance or that pilots could perform simple calculations using the Pay Register.

The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the alleged violations of sections 226(a)(2) and 226(a)(9) was granted. United’s motion for summary judgment on those violations was denied. The court also rejected United’s argument that the Railway Labor Act barred or preempted these claims, following the court of appeals’ determination that resolving the claims did not require interpreting the collective bargaining agreements.

Employer-Address Claim

The plaintiffs alleged that United violated section 226(a)(8) by listing a post office box rather than a physical address. The court held that the term “address” includes a post office box. It therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on this claim and granted United’s motion for summary judgment on the Private Attorneys General Act claim based on section 226(a)(8).

Statutory-Penalty Claims

The plaintiffs also pursued class claims under section 226(e), which allows statutory penalties when an employee establishes a wage-statement violation, resulting injury, and a knowing and intentional violation. The court found that the violations of sections 226(a)(2) and (a)(9) satisfied the violation element. It found injury because pilots could not promptly and easily determine the required information from the wage statements alone.

The court further held that United’s violations were not knowing and intentional before February 2, 2021, because United had relied on the district court’s earlier ruling. After the court of appeals remanded that ruling on February 2, 2021, the court found that United had sufficient notice that section 226 applied and that its wage statements were inadequate. The court therefore found that the plaintiffs established their section 226(e) class claim as of February 2, 2021.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court found that the plaintiffs established their Private Attorneys General Act claim by proving violations of sections 226(a)(2) and (a)(9). It stated that a hearing on damages calculations would occur later. The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the class should not be subdivided so that the statutory-penalty claim concerns wage statements issued from February 2, 2021, onward. Counsel were ordered to submit briefing by August 18, 2022, at noon.