Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular
209 Cal. App. 4th 556
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Krofta and Katz (putative class representatives) challenged AirTouch's payment of wages for meetings under IWC Wage Order 4 No. 4-2001; Krofta was denied reporting time pay and split-shift pay; Katz released all claims via a Release of Claims Agreement and funds were paid upon incentive award exercise; trial court awarded AirTouch attorney fees under 218.5; Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. prompted reconsideration; class certification motion was denied without prejudice and deemed non-final.
- Krofta’s meetings were scheduled and he was paid for at least half the scheduled time; he had five instances of under-four-hour periods and five split shifts, all compensated per timesheets; Katz signed a release and accepted a monetary incentive, which AirTouch argued barred further claims; the court later split the fee analysis between 218.5 and 1194 in light of Kirby.
- The appellate court reaffirmed summary judgment for Krofta on reporting time and split shift claims but remanded for apportionment of attorney fees related to the reporting time defense; Katz’s release was upheld as valid under Watkins v. Wachovia; class certification denial was not appealable at this stage.
- The court held that reporting time pay under Wage Order 4 is triggered only when scheduled work is not provided for at least half the time, and Krofta was not entitled; split shift pay is governed by 4(C) and, where total pay exceeded minimums, no additional amount was due; the reporting time claim falls under 218.5 for fees, while split-shift claims fall under 1194.
- The court concluded that the trial court must apportion AirTouch’s fees between reporting time (218.5) and split shift (1194) defenses, and that the denial of class certification is not immediately appealable, leaving the option to refile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reporting time pay entitlement for scheduled meetings | Krofta sought reporting time pay | AirTouch argued no due because meetings were scheduled and half-time fulfilled | Krofta not entitled to reporting time pay |
| Split shift compensation entitlement | Krofta claimed additional pay for split shifts | AirTouch argued total pay exceeded minimums; 4(C) not met | Krofta not owed additional split-shift pay under 4(C) in these cases |
| Katz release validity | Katz claimed release could not bar undisputed rights to reporting time/split shift | Release covered claimed rights and was supported by consideration | Release upheld; claims barred as to those asserted, consistent with Watkins |
| Attorney fees—statutory basis | Both claims governed by 1194; 218.5 not applicable | Fees awarded under 218.5; Kirby changes applicability | Split shift under 1194; reporting time under 218.5; need apportionment of fees |
| Class certification denial appealability | Denial without prejudice permits appeal | No final judgment on class claims | Denial not appealable at this stage; dismissed on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (Cal. 2012) (clarified section 1194 vs 218.5 applicability post-Kirby)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (liberal construction of wage claims doesn't override clear terms; dual purpose of provisions)
- Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Cal. App. 2011) (reporting time pay analysis in scheduled vs off days; guidance on 5(A))
- Watkins v. Wachovia Corp., 172 Cal.App.4th 1576 (Cal. App. 2009) (release of wage claims upheld when bona fide dispute existed; related to 206.5/206)
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124 (Cal. 1979) (apportionment of attorney fees when multiple claims)