Batze v. Safeway, Inc.
B258732M
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- Three assistant managers (Batze, Cesar, Hayes) sued Safeway/Vons alleging unpaid overtime for time spent performing non-managerial tasks (stocking, checking, displays). Trials consolidated; lengthy evidence and witness testimony presented.
- Trial court found defendants met burden that each plaintiff spent more than 50% of their time on exempt managerial duties (per Wage Order No. 7-2001) for most contested weeks; limited recovery to weeks within four-year limitations period.
- Court treated store walks, management of out-of-stocks (except physical replenishing), and front-end supervision as principally exempt when performed for managerial purposes.
- Court excluded claims older than four years before each plaintiff’s complaint and refused to apply American Pipe tolling based on lack of commonality and prejudice to employer.
- Court also held the 2003–2004 strike qualified as an emergency so that temporary performance of nonexempt tasks by managers did not destroy exemption; found some strike-era claims untimely or not credible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were primarily engaged in exempt managerial duties (>50% rule) | Plaintiffs say they spent majority time on nonexempt tasks (stocking, checking, displays); employer must prove week-by-week and cannot fill evidentiary gaps. | Safeway argued evidence (observational study, manager testimony, records, RLD training and duties) showed majority managerial time and permitted reasonable inferences across weeks. | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported that appellants primarily performed exempt work in the contested period; employer may rely on credible testimony, studies and reasonable inferences. |
| Proper classification of hybrid tasks (store walks, out-of-stocks, front-end) | Plaintiffs argued many such activities involve routine nonexempt work and cannot be treated as exempt when similar tasks done by hourly staff. | Defendants: same tasks are exempt when performed for managerial purposes (observing, directing, ordering, coaching); Wage Order and FLSA regs allow task-by-task classification. | Held: Court followed Heyen and Wage Order — classify each discrete task by purpose; long store walks, scanning/ordering out-of-stocks (not replenishing) and front-end supervision are exempt when done for managerial reasons. |
| Whether performing nonexempt tasks during the 2003–2004 strike negates exemption | Plaintiffs argued long hours doing nonexempt work during strike should defeat exemption. | Defendants argued emergency rule preserves exemption for managers temporarily doing nonexempt tasks during an emergency (FLSA regulation). | Held: Strike found an emergency; performing nonexempt tasks during it did not strip exemption. Credibility and statute limits trimmed some strike claims. |
| Whether earlier putative class action (Knoch) tolled statute of limitations | Plaintiffs urged American Pipe tolling from 2002 class filing so claims back to 1998 could be pursued. | Defendants contended lack of commonality and prejudice made tolling inappropriate; Jolly presumption against tolling when class lacks commonality. | Held: Court declined tolling. Denial of class certification and disparate facts meant employer was not on notice to preserve evidence for thousands of managers; trial court’s refusal to toll affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heyen v. Safeway Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 795 (Cal. Ct. App.) (identical tasks may be exempt or nonexempt depending on managerial purpose; discrete-task classification)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water, Inc. Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (employer realistic expectations and employee actual time must both be considered in exemption analysis)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (overview of wage orders and regulatory framework)
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (class filing may toll limitations for putative class members in limited circumstances)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (California limits application of American Pipe tolling where lack of commonality makes tolling inappropriate)
- Dunbar v. Albertson’s Inc., 141 Cal.App.4th 1422 (Cal. Ct. App.) (exempt versus nonexempt status can vary week-to-week; week-by-week analysis is relevant)