Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Background

David Williams, an Amazon employee, alleged that Amazon violated California Labor Code section 2802 by failing to reimburse him and other employees for home internet expenses incurred while working from home during the first couple of years of the COVID-19 pandemic. He sought certification of a class consisting of nearly 7,000 Amazon employees who worked from home in California at some point between March 15, 2020, and July 1, 2022.

Class certification is the process by which a court allows a case to proceed on behalf of a group of people. Williams relied primarily on Rule 23(b)(3), which requires common questions to predominate over questions affecting only individual class members.

Theories of Common Questions

Williams's primary theory was that Amazon had a common reimbursement policy, reflected in internal frequently asked questions and Amazon's reimbursement software. He argued that the policy unlawfully limited reimbursement to incremental increases in home internet costs and that the legality of that policy was a common question for the class.

The court found that the evidence did not support Williams's characterization of the policy. More than 600 of the approximately 7,000 proposed class members received reimbursement for home internet expenses, with an average reimbursement of $66.49 per month. Many employees apparently received reimbursement for their full home internet costs, which the court said could not reasonably be characterized as merely incremental and appeared to exceed what California law required. The court therefore concluded that the proposed class members' reimbursement experiences raised individual liability questions rather than presenting a common policy that would predominate at trial.

Williams's alternative theory did not depend on a common policy. It was that Amazon knew, or should have known, employees were incurring home internet expenses while working from home and therefore had to reimburse a reasonable portion of those expenses under section 2802. The court found this theory had more support in the evidence and could potentially support class certification. Amazon had issued guidance recommending or allowing employees whose jobs could be done from home to work remotely, and its materials referred to a company-advised work-from-home period.

But Williams did not adequately address the fact that Amazon appeared to have reimbursed a substantial percentage of the proposed class in compliance with section 2802. The court treated that issue as one of liability, not merely damages, because an employee who received a reasonable percentage of home internet expenses would not have a section 2802 violation. The court also declined to change the class definition at the hearing to exclude employees who had received reimbursement. It noted that some reimbursed employees might still have valid claims if they were reimbursed for only part of the relevant period or received less than California law required, but Williams had not analyzed that issue.

Disposition

The court held that the significant, identifiable group of employees who received reimbursement placed a substantial portion of the proposed class in a materially different position from the rest. The court concluded that it would not be appropriate to certify the class on the record presented.

The court denied the motion for class certification without prejudice to Williams filing a renewed motion based on a better presentation, particularly concerning his alternative theory. The order did not state that the underlying claims were dismissed. The court also scheduled a further case-management conference for March 31, 2023, and required a case-management statement by March 24, 2023.