Price v. Wells Fargo & Company

Background

Janisha Lee Price and Carmen Zamarripa brought California state-law wage-and-hour claims against their current or former employer, Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. Price worked as a telephone Mortgage Customer Service Representative and Home Loan Processor in San Bernardino, California. Zamarripa worked as a telephone Phone Banker I in El Monte, California, from February 2021 through September 2022.

The plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo required employees to perform unpaid work before and after their scheduled shifts, failed to provide consistent meal and rest breaks, and failed to reimburse Price for necessary business expenses. Their complaint asserted claims for failure to pay overtime, minimum wages, and regular wages; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to pay all wages upon termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Motion to Dismiss

Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim. At this stage, the court considered whether the complaint alleged enough facts to make entitlement to relief plausible, rather than deciding whether the plaintiffs would ultimately prove their claims.

Off-the-Clock Work

The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their overtime, minimum-wage, and regular-wage claims. They alleged that employees had to arrive before their scheduled shifts to start computers, open software programs, read company communications, and log into Wells Fargo’s telephone systems before the paid portion of the workday began. They also alleged that employees regularly worked after scheduled shifts while logging off programs, securing workstations, and protecting customer and company information.

The plaintiffs further alleged that Wells Fargo required employees to be logged into their phones and ready to handle calls at the start of their scheduled shifts, disciplined employees who were not ready, and knew about the off-the-clock work through managers’ observations and electronic reports. The court found that these allegations provided enough detail to support a reasonable inference that employees worked more than 40 hours in at least some workweeks without receiving required pay.

Meal and Rest Breaks

The court also held that the meal- and rest-break claims were adequately pleaded. The plaintiffs alleged that they were required to take customer calls during scheduled breaks, that they complained to supervisors, and that supervisors responded that the call center was short staffed. Price also alleged that she had to acknowledge that a noncompliant meal break was taken voluntarily, while Zamarripa alleged that she had to document taking a scheduled break or risk discipline.

The court concluded that these allegations described a policy requiring employees to work during scheduled meal and rest breaks and were sufficient to state claims.

Reimbursement Claim

The court found that Price adequately pleaded her claim for reimbursement under California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802. She identified specific expenses that she allegedly had to pay for work, including notebooks, pens, highlighters, ethernet cables, a stronger internet connection, and a desk. She also alleged that managers called her personal cell phone several times a week about work-related tasks.

The court rejected Wells Fargo’s argument that the allegations lacked the factual detail required at the pleading stage. It explained that a case Wells Fargo relied on addressed what was necessary to prevail at summary judgment, not what was necessary to state a claim in a complaint.

Derivative Claims and Disposition

Wells Fargo also sought dismissal of the claims for termination pay, accurate wage statements, and unfair competition because those claims depended on the other wage claims. Because the court denied dismissal of the first six claims, it also rejected the request to dismiss the derivative claims.

The court denied Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, vacated the scheduled hearing, and reset the initial case-management conference for October 13, 2022. The order disposed of Docket No. 17.