Christopher Mendoza v. Nordstrom
778 F.3d 834
9th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Christopher Mendoza and Meagan Gordon are former hourly, nonexempt Nordstrom employees in California who occasionally worked more than six consecutive days.
- Mendoza worked stretches of 7–11 consecutive days (some days under six hours) after being asked to fill in by supervisors or coworkers; Gordon worked seven consecutive days once (two days under six hours).
- Mendoza filed a class action in state court alleging violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 551 and 552 (one day’s rest in seven; no more than six days’ work in seven), removed to federal court; Gordon intervened.
- The district court held: (1) sections 551/552 apply on a rolling consecutive-seven-day basis; (2) section 556’s exemption applies because plaintiffs worked less than six hours on at least one day in the relevant seven-day period; and (3) Nordstrom did not “cause” the extra work because employees voluntarily accepted extra shifts (court dismissed claims).
- The Ninth Circuit panel found California law unclear on three controlling statutory-interpretation questions and therefore certified those questions to the California Supreme Court under Cal. R. Ct. 8.548, stayed the appeal, and agreed to follow the state court’s answers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Measurement period for the one-day-rest requirement (Cal. Lab. Code § 551): rolling any consecutive 7 days vs. defined workweek | Mendoza: statute requires a day’s rest in any consecutive seven-day period (rolling measure) | Nordstrom: statute should be measured by the employer’s workweek; surrounding code uses "workweek" | Ninth Circuit: uncertaintly in California law; certified the question to the CA Supreme Court for decision |
| 2) Scope of § 556 exemption ("30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof"): "any" = at least one day under six hours vs. "any" = each day under six hours | Mendoza: exemption should not apply if employee worked ≥6 hours on some days in the period; §556 targets true part-time schedules | Nordstrom: "any" day reading exempts employers when the employee worked less than six hours on at least one day in the week (district court adopted this) | Ninth Circuit: text ambiguous and both readings plausible; certified the question to the CA Supreme Court |
| 3) Meaning of "cause" in § 552 (employer may not "cause" employees to work >6 days in 7): types of employer acts that qualify | Mendoza: employer actions that induce, encourage, schedule, reward, or foreseeably result in extra days can "cause" violations | Nordstrom: employer must coerce or compel; voluntary acceptance by employees defeats "cause" (district court found no coercion) | Ninth Circuit: ambiguous statutory text and policy implications; certified the question to the CA Supreme Court |
| 4) Case disposition pending state-law answers | Mendoza: seeks ruling in plaintiffs’ favor if state law supports rolling period, narrow §556, and broad "cause" meaning | Nordstrom: seeks affirmance based on workweek measure, broad §556 exemption, and narrow "cause" requiring coercion | Ninth Circuit: withheld merits, stayed proceedings, and requested California Supreme Court guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 739 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2013) (supports certifying state-law questions to state supreme court under comity/federalism principles)
- Klein v. United States, 537 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2008) (federal court bound by state supreme court answers to certified questions)
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) (employer must relieve employee of duty during breaks but not ensure employee does not continue to work)
- People v. Roberts, 826 P.2d 274 (Cal. 1992) (discusses causation in terms of "natural and probable consequence")
- People v. Scott, 324 P.3d 827 (Cal. 2014) (statutory interpretation begins with text)