Shwiyat v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Background

Austin Shwiyat brought claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allows a private individual to seek civil penalties on behalf of employees for alleged Labor Code violations. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. removed the action to federal court, asserting that some claims were completely preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The parties had already agreed to dismiss claims that Shwiyat conceded were preempted. The court later concluded that Shwiyat, a non-union employee, had standing to litigate whether his PAGA claims concerning unionized employees were preempted.

Martin Marietta then sought partial summary judgment on meal-period, rest-period, overtime, and related claims involving three groups of employees. Summary judgment is a decision entered when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Martin Marietta also asked to file supplemental evidence concerning the weight of its ready-mix trucks.

Evidence

The court accepted testimony from Martin Marietta’s Senior Labor Relations Manager, Mark Epstein, about employee duties as described in collective bargaining agreements and company job descriptions, but it would not consider his testimony about employees’ actual day-to-day work when he lacked personal knowledge of those activities. The court also declined to consider Human Resources Manager Tricia Reedy’s conclusions about the trucks’ weight because she had not personally weighed the trucks or reviewed weight documents.

The court nevertheless allowed Martin Marietta to file a supplemental declaration from Cole Jacobs, its Vice President of Sales and Market Development. The court found that Jacobs’s declaration clarified and provided context for Reedy’s deposition testimony and that his position and more than 20 years of experience in the ready-mix industry gave him sufficient personal knowledge about the trucks’ weight. The motion for leave to file supplemental evidence was therefore granted.

Ready-mix drivers

The court granted summary judgment on PAGA meal-period claims for ready-mix drivers covered by the collective bargaining agreements identified at ECF Nos. 29-11, 29-12, 29-13, 29-15, 29-16, 29-19, and 29-20. California Labor Code section 512 exempts certain commercial drivers covered by qualifying collective bargaining agreements from the state’s meal-period requirements. The court found that the ready-mix drivers were commercial drivers because they transported ready-mix concrete, and the plaintiff did not dispute that the collective bargaining agreements met the statutory requirements.

The court denied summary judgment on PAGA rest-period claims for ready-mix drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration had determined that federal hours-of-service rules preempt California’s rest-break rules for property-carrying commercial motor vehicle drivers subject to those federal rules. But Martin Marietta did not sufficiently explain how its registration as a federal motor carrier established the required connection to interstate commerce. The court therefore found that Martin Marietta had not yet established that the ready-mix drivers were subject to the federal rules.

The court granted summary judgment on PAGA overtime claims for ready-mix drivers. It found that California’s overtime law and Wage Order 4 did not provide a basis for those claims because the drivers fell within a Wage Order 4 exemption covering drivers regulated under specified California vehicle regulations. The evidence showed that the ready-mix trucks required Class A or Class B licenses and had a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 26,001 pounds.

Because the ready-mix rest-period claims remained unresolved, the court denied summary judgment on the related claims for allegedly inaccurate time and payroll records and allegedly late payment of wages upon separation. The court explained that those claims could be derivative of the surviving rest-period claims rather than only of the meal and overtime claims on which Martin Marietta obtained judgment.

Construction employees

The court granted summary judgment on PAGA meal-period claims and related claims for employees covered by the collective bargaining agreements identified at ECF Nos. 29-1, 29-2, 29-3, 29-7, 29-8, 29-9, 29-17, 29-18, and 29-28. California Labor Code section 512 exempts employees in a construction occupation when they are covered by a qualifying collective bargaining agreement. The court found that the covered employees’ work—including excavation, operating or repairing heavy equipment, digging trenches, and grading and paving—fell within the statutory definition of construction occupation. The court rejected Shwiyat’s argument that Martin Marietta’s status as a materials supplier prevented the exemption from applying, explaining that the statute focuses on the employees’ particular jobs.

The court also granted summary judgment on PAGA rest-period claims for employees covered by the collective bargaining agreements identified at ECF Nos. 29-2, 29-3, 29-9, and 29-28. Those employees worked in construction or mining occupations covered by Wage Order 16, and the agreements provided equivalent protection from the rest-period requirements. The court also granted summary judgment on the related claims, including alleged failures to maintain accurate time records, provide accurate wage statements, and pay all wages owed upon separation.

Disposition

The order granted in part Martin Marietta’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted its motion to file supplemental evidence. Specifically, judgment was granted on the identified ready-mix drivers’ meal and overtime claims; denied on their rest claims and related claims; granted on the identified construction employees’ meal claims and related claims; and granted on the identified construction employees’ rest claims and related claims. Discovery remained open, and the order disposed of Docket Nos. 36 and 49.