Dylan Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc.
878 F.3d 883
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Dylan Stewart worked as an EMT for San Luis Ambulance (SLA) on 24-hour shifts and was paid for all 24 hours regardless of activity; SLA required attendants to remain "on duty" and available for emergency calls during meal and rest periods.
- Stewart had a written 24-hour shift agreement (no explicit revocation clause for on‑duty meal periods) and sometimes worked shorter "Day Car" shifts under a different agreement that contained an on‑duty meal period revocation clause.
- Stewart sued after voluntarily terminating employment, asserting four California law claims: violations of meal‑period and rest‑period regulations, failure to timely pay wages (waiting‑time penalty), and inaccurate wage statements.
- The district court granted summary judgment for SLA on those state‑law claims; Stewart appealed, arguing he is entitled to premium wages (two hours) per missed meal/rest period and statutory penalties under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 203 and 226(e)(1).
- The Ninth Circuit panel concluded the controlling state law is unsettled—tension among Wage Order 9, Monzon, and Augustus—and certified three legal questions to the California Supreme Court instead of resolving the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Must employers of 24‑hour ambulance attendants relieve them of all duties during rest breaks (including availability to respond to calls)? | Stewart: Wage Order 9 rest‑period language requires being relieved of all duties; on‑call rest periods violate Wage Order 9 like Wage Order 4 in Augustus. | SLA: Section 3(K) of Wage Order 9 contemplates 24‑hour shifts and, coupled with Monzon precedent, allows on‑call or controlled rest/sleep without full relief from duties. | Not decided—question certified to California Supreme Court for authoritative interpretation of Wage Order 9. |
| 2. May employers require attendants to be available during meal periods without a written on‑duty meal period revocation clause? Does an at‑will clause suffice? | Stewart: Meal‑period regulations require either a true off‑duty meal or a written agreement expressly allowing on‑duty meal periods with revocation language; at‑will clause is insufficient. | SLA: Monzon and industry practice permit exclusion of meal/sleep time under Wage Order 9 without the specific revocation clause; at‑will language may suffice or no specific clause required. | Not decided—question certified to California Supreme Court. |
| 3. If employer violates meal‑period regulations and fails to pay the premium wage or report it on pay stubs, do such violations support claims under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 203 (waiting‑time penalty) and 226 (wage statement)? | Stewart: Premium wages for improper meal periods are wages; failure to pay/report them gives rise to § 203 and § 226 remedies. | SLA: Under Kirby, meal‑period premiums are not necessarily the basis for § 203/§ 226 claims; inconsistent authority exists post‑Murphy and Kirby. | Not decided—question certified to California Supreme Court; Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Service, Inc., 273 Cal. Rptr. 615 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (applied federal regulation to allow deduction of sleep time for ambulance attendants under certain agreements).
- Augustus v. ABM Security Servs., Inc., 385 P.3d 823 (Cal. 2016) (interpreted Wage Order 4 to require rest periods be free from duties and control).
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 155 P.3d 284 (Cal. 2007) (characterized meal‑period premium as a "premium wage").
- Kirby v. Immoos Fire Prot., Inc., 274 P.3d 1160 (Cal. 2012) (held meal‑period violation is not necessarily tied to nonpayment of wages for purposes of certain wage remedies).
- Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., 340 P.3d 355 (Cal. 2015) (limited Monzon to its facts and cautioned against importing federal compensation standards absent clear IWC intent).