Charles Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 889 F.3d 1068

Named plaintiffs (pilots and flight attendants) are California residents who receive pay in California and pay California income tax, but perform only a small portion of their work in California (pilots ~12% flight time; flight attendants ~17%).
Plaintiffs are unionized; their employment terms are governed by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) negotiated under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
Plaintiffs sued United Airlines under California Labor Code § 226, alleging wage statements lacked employer name/address and failed to list applicable hourly rates and hours at each rate; payroll/hour details were available on United’s internal website.
District courts granted summary judgment for United, holding § 226 does not apply to class members who do not work principally in California and/or that extraterritorial application was inappropriate.
The Ninth Circuit found unsettled California law on: (1) whether Wage Order 9’s RLA exemption applies to § 226 claims by employees covered by an RLA CBA; and (2) whether § 226 applies to wage statements from an out-of-state employer to California-resident employees who receive pay in California but do not work principally in the state.
The Ninth Circuit certified those two questions to the California Supreme Court, stayed the federal cases, and retained jurisdiction pending the state court’s response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Wage Order 9’s RLA exemption bar a § 226 wage-statement claim by an employee covered by an RLA CBA?	§ 226 is a distinct, detailed statutory requirement that does not incorporate Wage Order 9’s RLA exemption; thus unionized employees can sue under § 226.	Wage Order 9’s explicit RLA exemption should be read to cover wage-statement requirements including § 226, preventing § 226 claims that would nullify the exemption.	Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court for resolution.
Does § 226 apply to wage statements from an out-of-state employer to a California-resident employee who receives pay in California but does not work principally in California?	§ 226 applies because the employees reside in and receive pay in California; California’s interest in protecting resident employees’ pay-information is sufficient.	Applying § 226 extraterritorially to an out-of-state employer that does not principally operate or have headquarters in California would improperly extend California law beyond its bounds and raise interstate-comity concerns.	Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court for resolution.

Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 927 P.2d 296 (Cal. 1996) (addressed territorial reach of California wage orders but did not resolve application to employees who work primarily outside California)
Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 254 P.3d 237 (Cal. 2011) (explained extraterritoriality principles for labor laws and focused on where liability-creating conduct occurs)
Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) (principle of harmonizing wage orders and statutory requirements)
Collins v. Overnite Transp. Co., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 254 (Ct. App. 2003) (interpreting Wage Order 9 exemptions in the labor context)
Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 243 (Ct. App. 2005) (discussed applicability of statutory wage-statement requirements to unionized employees)
Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 968 P.2d 539 (Cal. 1998) (extraterritoriality analytical framework)
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (U.S. 2016) (focus on location of conduct relevant to statute’s focus in extraterritoriality analysis)
Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 153 P.3d 846 (Wash. 2007) (consideration of interstate-comity and whether another state’s law would govern)