10 Cal. App. 5th 440
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Three assistant managers (Gary Batze, Carlo Cesar, Justin Hayes) sued Safeway/Vons for unpaid overtime, alleging they spent majority of time on non‑exempt tasks (stocking, checking, displays). Trials of selected claims followed multiple related suits and a denied class certification.
- Plaintiffs worked as First or Second Assistant Managers (salaried) in various stores; wage claims proceeded under the UCL with a 4‑year limitations period. Trial focused on whether their duties met the executive/managerial exemption.
- Extensive testimony and documentary evidence (observational study, time logs, performance evaluations, RLD training materials) were presented about store walks, managing out‑of‑stocks, front‑end supervision, scheduling, vendor relations, and time spent on checking/stocking.
- Trial court found plaintiffs met most exemption criteria (managed a unit, directed ≥2 employees, exercised discretion, salary met threshold) and that each spent >50% of work time on exempt managerial duties in the relevant periods.
- Court rejected plaintiffs’ contentions that evidence had to be shown week‑by‑week and that class filing tolled the statute of limitations; it also held strike‑period work was done during an emergency and did not defeat exempt status (and some strike claims were time‑barred).
- Judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed and court of appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants were primarily engaged in exempt managerial duties (>50% time) | Appellants: evidence showed they regularly performed non‑exempt tasks (stocking, checking, displays); burden on employer to prove exempt status week‑by‑week | Safeway: managerial duties (store walks, out‑of‑stocks, front‑end supervision, scheduling, vendor relations) and records support that exempt work predominated; reasonable inferences from observations and documents are proper | Court: substantial evidence supports finding appellants primarily engaged in exempt work; employer met burden and may rely on inferences and documentary proof rather than proof for every single week |
| Proper classification of borderline/hybrid tasks (store walks, scanning out‑of‑stocks, front‑end presence) | Appellants: many such tasks are non‑exempt when they involve physical replenishment or checking | Safeway: identical tasks can be exempt or non‑exempt depending on purpose; store walks, scanning to diagnose out‑of‑stocks, and front‑end oversight are managerial when done to supervise/solve problems | Court: tasks categorized by purpose; long store walks and out‑of‑stock scanning (when managerial in purpose) and front‑end oversight are exempt; discrete replenishing/checking can be non‑exempt and were accounted for in records |
| Status of work performed during the 2003–2004 strike | Plaintiffs: hours substituting for striking hourly workers were non‑exempt and should defeat exemption | Safeway: strike created an emergency; performing non‑exempt tasks during emergency does not strip exemption; some strike claims also time‑barred | Court: strike constituted emergency under applicable regulation; exemption preserved for emergency work; some asserted strike work was not credible or was time‑barred |
| Whether the Knoch class filing tolled statute of limitations for older claims | Plaintiffs: American Pipe tolling applies from Knoch filing, so pre‑2004 claims should be viable | Safeway: Jolly presumes tolling does not apply where lack of commonality would have prevented class notice; defendant lacked notice to preserve evidence for many individualized claims | Court: applied Jolly/American Pipe analysis; denied tolling because class claims lacked commonality and defendant would be unfairly prejudiced; some plaintiffs delayed after denial; statute of limitations not tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (employer's realistic expectations and employee's actual time on duties must both be considered when assessing exemption)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (overview of wage‑and‑hour framework and IWC/wage order authority)
- Heyen v. Safeway Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 795 (Cal. Ct. App.) (identical tasks may be exempt or nonexempt depending on manager's purpose; no hybrid‑activity shortcut)
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 50 Cal.4th 1389 (Cal. 2010) (UCL may be used to seek restitution for unpaid overtime)
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (class action filing may toll statutes of limitations for putative class members in limited circumstances)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (California limits American Pipe tolling where lack of commonality in class action would not have given defendant adequate notice)