Bluford v. Safeway Inc.
216 Cal. App. 4th 864
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Bluford seeks class certification in a wage-and-hour action against Safeway Inc. regarding rest periods, meal periods, and wage statements.
- Drivers at Safeway’s Tracy distribution center are represented by a union with CBAs dictating rest and meal requirements.
- Rest periods: two 15-minute paid breaks per 8- or 10-hour shift; extra 15 minutes for overtime.
- Meal periods: 30-minute unpaid meal period; second meal period introduced for shifts over 10 hours in later CBA; second meal may be waived.
- Compensation system: activity-based pay based on mileage, task rates, and delays; pay calculations did not separately account for rest periods; records (trip sheets, XATA) lacked fields for rest/meals.
- Trial court denied class certification; held individual issues predominated for rest/meal periods and no common injury from wage statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance of common issues for rest period subclass | Rest-period practices are uniform; no separate rest-period payments per law. | Individual drivers’ circumstances require individualized inquiry. | Common issues predominate; rest-period subclass certified. |
| Rest periods must be separately compensated under law | Piece-rate system fails to separately pay for rest periods; violates minimum wage law. | Rest-period pay integrated into overall compensation; no separate payment required. | Rest periods must be separately compensated; common evidence supports certification. |
| Predominance of wage-statement claim and common injury | Wage statements fail to itemize rest periods and provide necessary information. | No common injury from wage statements; damages individualized. | Court found common injury and certified wage-statement subclass. |
| Federal preemption via LMRA | Claims depend on interpretation of CBAs; potentially preempted. | LMRA preempts state-law claims heavily dependent on CBAs. | Preemption not barriers to certification in this context; not central to outcome here. |
| Superiority and manageability of class action | Class action appropriate to efficiently adjudicate common wage issues. | Individualized issues could overwhelm class. | Not needed as primary issue; court favored class treatment for rest-period claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., 89 Cal.App.4th 908 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (predominance allows class treatment with common liability)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (predominance analysis for class actions; common questions favored)
- Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 2007) (criteria for class certification; deference to trial court)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (standard on class certification and predominance)
- Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (rest periods must be compensated in a piece-rate system)
- Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transport, 869 F.Supp.2d 1158 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (piece-rate pay system not separately paying for nondriving duties violates law)
- Cardenas v. McLane FoodServices, Inc., 796 F.Supp.2d 1246 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (separate compensation for rest periods under minimum wage law)
- Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (precedent on drivers’ wage-and-hour claims prior Safeway control)