424 P.3d 207
Wash.2018Background
- Garda CL Northwest operates armored trucks; drivers/messengers must maintain vigilance and were required to remain attentive during breaks and meals.
- Plaintiffs (Hill, Wise, Miller) sued as a class claiming Garda’s constant‑vigilance policy deprived them of WAC‑protected vigilance‑free rest breaks and "on‑duty" meal periods and violated the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA). They sought back wages, double exemplary damages (RCW 49.52.070), and prejudgment interest (RCW 19.52.010).
- The trial court held Garda violated WAC 296‑126‑092 and the MWA, awarded back wages, prejudgment interest on back wages, and double damages (starting after Pellino v. Brink's). Garda appealed limited to meal‑period double damages and the prejudgment interest double‑recovery issue.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed liability but found Garda established a bona fide dispute (defense to double damages) as to whether meal‑period rights could be waived in CBAs and reversed double damages for meal violations; it also vacated portions of prejudgment interest tied to violations for which double damages were awarded.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review on whether Garda proved a bona fide dispute based on waiver in CBAs and whether plaintiffs may recover both double exemplary damages and prejudgment interest for the same wage violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer proved bona fide dispute (objective + subjective) that CBAs waived state right to vigilance‑free on‑duty meal periods | Plaintiffs: CBAs did not waive on‑duty meal periods; they were deprived of on‑duty, work‑free meal periods protected by WAC 296‑126‑092 | Garda: CBAs (and acknowledgements) waived meal rights (off‑duty); thus there was a fairly debatable dispute about waiver and no willful withholding | Reversed Court of Appeals: Garda failed to show bona fide dispute as to waiver of the specific on‑duty meal right plaintiffs sought to enforce; CBAs did not waive on‑duty meal periods |
| Whether LMRA §301 preempted plaintiffs' state‑law meal claims or barred courts from interpreting CBAs when raised by employer | Plaintiffs: State law claims independent of CBAs; courts may interpret CBAs when employer relies on them | Garda: Section 301 preemption prevents state‑law claim enforcement or CBA interpretation here | Rejected Garda's broad preemption claim; §301 does not bar interpreting CBAs raised as defenses and does not preempt state rules establishing independent rights |
| Whether plaintiffs may recover both double exemplary damages (RCW 49.52.070) and prejudgment interest (RCW 19.52.010) for same wage violation | Plaintiffs: Prejudgment interest compensates lost use of wages; double exemplary damages punish/deter — distinct remedies | Garda: Awarding both creates impermissible double recovery (analogizing FLSA cases) | Held plaintiffs may recover both: double damages under RCW 49.52.070 are punitive/exemplary; prejudgment interest compensatory — no overlap that bars both (trial court limited interest to compensatory portion) |
| Whether remand needed to address Garda's other defenses (FAAAA preemption, knowing submission) | Plaintiffs: Other defenses were not resolved; remand appropriate | Garda: urged those defenses below and on appeal | Court remanded remaining statutory defenses (FAAAA, knowing submission) to Court of Appeals for resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Wash. State Nurses Ass'n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 822 (2012) (employer bears burden to prove bona fide dispute defense to double damages)
- Morgan v. King County, 166 Wn.2d 526 (2009) (bona fide dispute and willfulness principles under RCW 49.52)
- Schilling v. Radio Holdings, Inc., 136 Wn.2d 152 (1998) (definition of fairly debatable/bona fide dispute)
- Pellino v. Brink's Inc., 164 Wn. App. 668 (2011) (Court of Appeals decision holding similar constant‑vigilance policy violated WAC 296‑126‑092)
- Champagne v. Thurston County, 163 Wn.2d 69 (2008) (employer compliance with CBA can negate willfulness for double damages under certain circumstances)
- Hansen v. Rothaus, 107 Wn.2d 468 (1986) (prejudgment interest for liquidated wage claims)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) (§301 preemption does not displace nonnegotiable state rights; waiver requires clear and unmistakable language)
- Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) (FLSA liquidated damages analysis relevant to federal double‑damages/interest interplay)