Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.

Background

Gregory Horowitz alleged that he worked as a pilot for SkyWest Airlines, Inc. and sought to represent a proposed class of SkyWest’s California-based pilots. His First Amended Complaint asserted fourteen causes of action under California wage-and-hour laws: minimum wages; overtime wages; meal periods; rest periods; expense reimbursement; accurate wage statements; timely payment of wages at separation; unfair competition; and six claims for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). PAGA permits an employee to seek civil penalties for Labor Code violations in the role otherwise held by the state Labor Commissioner.

SkyWest moved for summary judgment, also called summary adjudication, on the Third through Fourteenth Causes of Action. The SkyWest Airlines Pilot Association joined the motion. SkyWest did not seek summary judgment on the First Cause of Action, and the court noted that it had previously dismissed the Second Cause of Action without leave to amend.

Meal- and Rest-Break Claims

The Third Cause of Action alleged violations of California meal-period requirements, and the Fourth alleged violations of California rest-period requirements. SkyWest argued that the Federal Aviation Act and related federal aviation regulations occupied the entire field of aviation safety and therefore preempted these state-law claims. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that federal aviation law preempts state claims that encroach on, supplement, or alter the federally occupied field of aviation safety.

The court concluded that federal regulations governing pilots’ duties and rest breaks preempted Horowitz’s claims for California meal and rest periods. It therefore granted SkyWest summary judgment on the Third and Fourth Causes of Action and did not reach SkyWest’s additional arguments concerning those claims.

Expense-Reimbursement Claim

The Fifth Cause of Action sought reimbursement under California Labor Code section 2802 for Horowitz’s alleged use of a personal cellphone for work. The evidence showed that pilots had access to SkyWest-issued tablets, SkyWest computers, and phones available at airport gates for work-related tasks. Horowitz also acknowledged that he could have used a SkyWest device. Because the evidence showed that personal-cellphone use was not required, the court found that Horowitz had not shown a necessary business expense and granted SkyWest summary judgment on the Fifth Cause of Action.

Wage-Statement Claim

The Sixth Cause of Action alleged that SkyWest’s wage statements failed to list total hours worked and the employer’s name and address, and were inaccurate because of alleged unpaid wages and meal- or rest-break violations.

For the total-hours theory under California Labor Code section 226(a)(2), Horowitz submitted wage statements that listed credit hours rather than all hours worked. SkyWest acknowledged that it did not begin listing pilots’ total duty hours until February 2022. The court nevertheless found that SkyWest had an objectively reasonable, good-faith defense based on the unsettled state of the law concerning the application of California wage-statement rules to airline pilots. It granted summary judgment on that theory.

For the employer-name-and-address theory under section 226(a)(8), SkyWest submitted evidence that its wage statements included that information, and Horowitz offered no contrary evidence. The court granted summary judgment on that theory as well.

For the inaccuracy theory based on the First Cause of Action’s allegation that SkyWest failed to pay wages for all hours worked, SkyWest was not entitled to summary judgment because it had not moved for judgment on the First Cause of Action. For the inaccuracy theory based on the meal- and rest-break claims, however, the court found the claim preempted for the same reasons as the Third and Fourth Causes of Action and granted summary judgment to SkyWest.

The court also noted that it did not consider a separate wage-statement theory raised for the first time in Horowitz’s opposition rather than in the complaint.

Timely-Payment and Unfair-Competition Claims

The Seventh Cause of Action alleged that SkyWest failed to pay all wages due when employees separated from employment. The Eighth Cause of Action alleged unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and was based on the alleged meal- and rest-break violations, expense-reimbursement violations, and wage violations.

Because the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action were derivative of the First Cause of Action in part, SkyWest was not entitled to summary judgment to that extent. To the extent the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action were based on the preempted Third and Fourth Causes of Action, the court granted summary judgment. To the extent the Eighth Cause of Action was based on the Fifth Cause of Action, the court granted summary judgment for the reasons stated in its expense-reimbursement analysis.

PAGA Claims

The Ninth through Fourteenth Causes of Action sought PAGA civil penalties. The Ninth Cause of Action was derivative of the First Cause of Action, so the court denied summary judgment on it.

The Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Causes of Action were derivative of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Causes of Action, respectively. The court granted summary judgment on those claims to the extent specified in its conclusion. The Thirteenth Cause of Action, concerning wage-statement violations, was not eliminated merely because Horowitz could not prove a knowing and intentional violation required for statutory damages under section 226. A PAGA claim based on section 226(a) requires proof of a violation but not injury or a knowing and intentional failure. The court therefore denied summary judgment on that claim.

Disposition

The court expressly ordered that SkyWest’s motion was granted in part and denied in part:

- As to the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action, the motion was granted. - As to the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Causes of Action, the motion was granted except insofar as those claims were based on the First Cause of Action. - In all other respects, the motion was denied.

The order was signed by Maxine M. Chesney, United States District Judge, on May 22, 2023.