Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150265
| C.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Defendant Maximus, Inc. operates welfare-to-work and other health and human services programs nationwide and employs Employment Case Managers to assist welfare recipients in achieving employment.
- Employment Case Managers are hourly employees who self-report time daily by rounding to the nearest quarter hour; defendant does not round time, and pay is semi-monthly based on self-reported hours.
- Defendant provides two types of bonuses: (i) individual bonus awards under written policies and (ii) MaxDollar spot bonuses; neither type is included in the regular rate for overtime under the challenged policy.
- Named Plaintiffs Blanco Alonzo, Jodi Valdes, and Michelle Daubet filed this putative class action (California state court, later removed to federal court) asserting wage and hour violations arising from rounding, bonuses, paystubs, and related UCL claims.
- The Court certified a class under Rule 23(b)(3) for several claims (Rounding, Bonus/Overtime, Paystub, and UCL) but denied certification for the Off-the-Clock claim; defendant moved for summary judgment on certified claims and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on several claims.
- The Court held oral argument and, after briefing and evidence, granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions, including granting summary judgment on the Rounding Claim and certain Bonus/Overtime issues while denying others, and granting some relief under the UCL and Paystub claims to the extent specified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rounding policy validity under 785.48(b) | Allege that rounding undercompensates employees over time | Rounding is facially neutral and complies with § 785.48(b) | Granted: rounding claim failed as a matter of law |
| Inclusion of individual bonus awards in regular rate | Bonuses must be included; not discretionary under § 207(e) | Bonuses are discretionary and excluded from regular rate | Granted for plaintiffs: individual bonuses included in regular rate for overtime |
| Inclusion of MaxDollar bonuses in regular rate | MaxDollar bonuses should be included if not discretionary | MaxDollar bonuses discretionary and excluded from regular rate | Granted for MaxDollar bonuses: not included in regular rate; defendant entitled to summary judgment on this portion |
| Paystub (section 226(a)) injury requirement | Missing dates and rates on wage statements cause injury; plaintiffs performed math to verify pay | No cognizable injury from simple math; statements insufficient for injury | Granted: no cognizable injury; paystub claim dismissed for lack of injury |
| Waiting time penalties under § 203 for disputed overtime | Willful failure regarding overtime pay after bonus omissions | Good faith dispute exists; not willful | Granted for waiting time penalties: good faith dispute found; penalties not awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (travel time can be hours worked if employer controls the travel to work site)
- Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Cal. App. 2011) (injury must arise from missing information, not simple math; no injury from basic calculations alone)
- Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 361 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (mathematical calculation injury considerations under wage statements)