39 F.4th 1176
9th Cir.2022Background
- The dispute arises from work at the California Flats Solar Project (Jack Ranch), which had a single guarded entrance and a Security Gate miles into the site where workers in personal vehicles had badges scanned and guards sometimes inspected vehicles; exit lines often caused 5–20 minute waits.
- Plaintiff George Huerta worked for CSI through a subcontractor and was covered by two collective bargaining agreements (including a Project Labor Agreement); CBAs required compliance with an environmental Incidental Take Permit and contained provisions addressing meal periods.
- CSI imposed site rules (speed limits, no smoking/drinking, dust controls, restrictions to protect endangered species) and told workers they were required to remain on site during the workday, including meal periods; workers drove from the Security Gate to employee parking lots (10–15 minutes) subject to those rules.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CSI, holding exit badging, the drive between gate and parking, and meal-period-on-site time were not compensable under IWC Wage Order No. 16 or were exempted by the CBAs; Huerta appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded California precedent is unclear on (1) compensability of exit badging/waiting in personal vehicles on site, (2) compensability of drive time on employer premises between gate and parking, and (3) whether CBAs can permit unpaid on‑duty meal periods that effectively deny minimum-wage protection — and certified three questions to the California Supreme Court and stayed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Is time spent on employer premises in a personal vehicle waiting to scan a badge, permit guards to peer into the vehicle, and exit a Security Gate compensable as "hours worked" under IWC Wage Order No. 16? | Huerta: Exit wait and badging are required on-site activities subject to employer control or are "suffered or permitted" work and thus compensable. | CSI: The control is insufficient under Frlekin; the time is not "suffered or permitted" work under Hernandez; entry/exit procedures here differ from compensable searches. | Ninth Circuit found no controlling CA precedent and CERTIFIED the question to the California Supreme Court. |
| 2) Is time driving on employer premises between the Security Gate and employee parking (subject to employer rules) compensable as "hours worked" or "employer-mandated travel" under Wage Order No. 16? | Huerta: Driving on-site was required, restricted by employer rules, and prevented personal use of time, so it is compensable. | CSI: Use of personal vehicles and traffic-like rules do not rise to Morillion-level control; optional commute principles (Overton/Hernandez) counsel against compensation. | Ninth Circuit found the law unsettled regarding control, "first location," and "employer-mandated travel," and CERTIFIED the question to the California Supreme Court. |
| 3) When workers are prohibited from leaving the premises but not required to perform activities, and the time is designated an unpaid meal period under a qualifying CBA, does Wage Order No. 16 or Lab. Code §1194 require compensation? | Huerta: On‑site prohibition makes the meal period "on-duty," so minimum-wage protections require pay despite the CBA designation. | CSI: Meal-period issues are governed by CBA exemptions in Lab. Code §512 and Wage Order No. 16; the CBA displaces off‑duty meal protections. | Ninth Circuit found controlling CA precedent lacking on whether CBAs can effectively leave unpaid on‑duty meal periods uncompensated and CERTIFIED the question to the California Supreme Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 457 P.3d 526 (Cal. 2020) (clarifies the "control" and "suffer or permit" prongs for compensable time and analyzes on‑site exit searches)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 995 P.2d 139 (Cal. 2000) (employer‑mandated off‑site transportation is compensable when employer controls when/where/how employees travel)
- Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Sols., Inc., 340 P.3d 355 (Cal. 2015) (on‑premises on‑call restrictions can establish compensable time under control analysis)
- Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 852 (Ct. App. 2018) (distinguishes optional employer‑provided transportation and limits "suffer or permit" findings for mere commutes)
- Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693 (Ct. App. 2006) (optional shuttle/transportation and choice in commute bore on compensability)
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) (discusses off‑duty meal‑period requirements and when employees must be free to leave)
- Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 421 P.3d 1114 (Cal. 2018) (interpretation of "suffered or permitted to work" standard)