390 F. Supp. 3d 1070
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiff Justin Griffin, a Sachs Electric solar-panel installer at the California Flats Solar Project (Nov 2016–Mar 2017), sued on behalf of a putative class and personally, alleging unpaid "hours worked" for travel between a security gate and on-site parking (≈12 miles, 45–55 min) and related individual discrimination/wrongful termination/IIED claims.
- Site setup: fenced private ranch with one Security Gate; an Access Road connects the gate to employee parking lots; from parking lots workers rode buggies (5–15 min) to work zones. Employees were paid beginning when they boarded the buggies; plaintiff does not dispute buggy time was paid.
- Workers could choose how to traverse the Access Road: drive their own car, carpool, take a McCarthy bus from offsite, or be given on-site transport; badges were scanned at the guard shack (no intrusive searches) and multiple workplace and environmental rules applied on-site.
- Relevant law: Wage Order 16 defines "hours worked" as time an employee is subject to employer control; IWC/Wage Order and California Supreme Court precedents govern compensability of employer-mandated travel (Morillion framework).
- Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment; Court considered whether Access Road travel is compensable under California law/Wage Order 16, whether Wage Order ¶5(A) was triggered, and whether Sachs lawfully terminated Griffin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Access Road travel (gate → parking lot) is "hours worked" under Wage Order 16 | Travel after entering through Security Gate placed employees under Sachs's control and prevented use of time for personal purposes, so travel is compensable | Sachs exerted no sufficient control: workers could use own cars, carpool, or offsite bus; many rules were safety/environmental and not equivalent to employer-mandated transport | Held: Not compensable; Access Road travel is not "hours worked" (summary judgment for Sachs) |
| Whether buggy travel (parking lot → worksite) is compensable | Travel to worksite via buggy is part of workday and compensable | Sachs admits and presents evidence that employees were paid beginning when they boarded buggies | Held: Not in dispute—employees were paid for buggy rides; no genuine issue |
| Whether the Security Gate constituted the "first location where the employee's presence is required" under Wage Order 16 ¶5(A) (making subsequent travel compensable) | Badge check at the guard shack required plaintiff's presence and thus triggers ¶5(A) | Gate interaction was minimal (badge scan, no search); CBA does not expressly waive ¶5(A) but gate interaction not a qualifying first location | Held: Gate was not the required "first location" under ¶5(A); badge scan did not trigger compensability |
| Validity of Griffin's individual FEHA/wrongful termination/IIED claims | Griffin contends termination was race-based or retaliatory (complaints about pay/time) | Sachs produced legitimate nondiscriminatory grounds (warnings, absenteeism, insubordination, refusal to sign warning) and Griffin failed to raise triable pretext evidence | Held: Summary judgment for Sachs on individual claims; plaintiff failed to show pretext or provide specific evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (establishes control test for compensable employer-mandated travel and distinguishes employer-mandated transport from ordinary commute)
- Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal. App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (shuttle-time not compensable where employees were not required to use employer-provided transport and had alternative ways to reach work)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (right to pay for employer-mandated travel exists under state law independent of CBA; CBA must expressly waive Wage Order ¶5(D) to displace state right)
- Rutti v. LoJack Corp., 596 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterates that the employer's level of control is determinative in travel-time analysis)
- Bono Enterprises, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 32 Cal. App.4th 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (time employees are required to remain on premises is compensable under wage–order control test)
- Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (Cal. 2018) (rejects FLSA de minimis doctrine under California law; time length is not dispositive for compensability)