DEAN v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
2:14-cv-02136
E.D. Pa.Sep 6, 2017Background
- CVS required pharmacy technicians to complete LEARNet training modules; some modules could be done during paid store shifts, others had to be finished at home, and unpaid completion prevented scheduling further paid hours.
- CVS policy instructed that employees be paid for LEARNet time and provided a payroll-slip/timesheet process for reporting at-home training hours.
- Both named plaintiffs (Dean, PA; Pressley, NJ) completed LEARNet modules at home and claim unpaid time; both asked supervisors how to get paid but received different responses.
- Pressley was told to fill out timesheets but did not obtain or submit them after onboarding; she was paid once when she did submit a timesheet.
- Dean repeatedly asked supervisors and was told he would not be paid for at-home LEARNet time; he did not have access to a reporting mechanism and claims he was misinformed.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery; the court grants summary judgment for Pressley (New Jersey claims) and denies it for Dean (Pennsylvania claims) based on differing evidentiary records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer violated state wage statute by failing to pay for at-home LEARNet hours | Pressley/Dean: LEARNet time was compensable and unpaid, so statutes entitle them to wages | CVS: employees failed to report hours via established timesheet system; employer cannot pay what it did not know about | Pressley (NJ): summary judgment for CVS because she failed to use timesheets or otherwise report time; Dean (PA): factual dispute precludes summary judgment because supervisors told him not to expect pay |
| Whether CVS breached an employment contract (wages earned) | Plaintiffs: implied/unilateral contract to pay wages for work performed (including training) | CVS: no enforceable contract for these hours or plaintiffs failed to follow reporting procedures | Pressley: breach claim dismissed because policy and supervisor instructed use of timesheet and she failed to follow it; Dean: dispute of material fact exists (reasonable expectation of pay despite supervisor misinformation) |
| Whether CVS was unjustly enriched by unpaid training work | Plaintiffs: CVS benefitted from required, uncompensated work and retained benefit without paying | CVS: it was willing to pay and provided a reporting system; any nonpayment was plaintiff’s omission | Pressley: unjust enrichment dismissed; Dean: claim survives summary judgment as triable issue exists |
| Whether employer’s timekeeping system was legally inadequate | Plaintiffs: CVS should have integrated LEARNet timestamps into payroll or otherwise ensured capture of hours | CVS: timesheets are a reasonable, legally sufficient system; employees must use them to report hours | Court: NJ law does not require a specific integrated system; timesheets are reasonable — Pressley loses; no legal requirement to adopt particular form of records |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. ScriptPro, LLC, 700 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir.) (failure to use employer time-log system can preclude recovery under wage statutes)
- White v. Baptist Mem. Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (6th Cir.) (employees who fail to log hours under reasonable system cannot recover)
- Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir.) (employer’s non-delegable duty to record time where employer forbids reporting overtime)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S.) (standards on employer recordkeeping and proof of hours worked)
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (U.S.) (clarification of scope of compensable activities under FLSA)
- Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24 A.3d 875 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (corporate policy and handbook can support a finding that workers were entitled to pay despite supervisor instructions to the contrary)
- Abbot v. Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP, 805 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (earned compensation cannot be retroactively rescinded; illustrative of vested wage concepts)
- Home Protection Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. 17 A.2d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (accepting benefit with knowledge implies promise to pay; restitution principles)