Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 426 P.3d 703

Xerox paid Federal Way call-center agents under an Achievement Based Compensation (ABC) plan that awarded a per-"production minute" rate (variable by performance tiers) and guaranteed a weekly minimum-wage subsidy if average pay fell below the statutory minimum.
"Production minutes" were defined by Xerox as actual clock time spent handling inbound customer calls and certain after-call tasks; nonproduction time (e.g., waiting for calls, breaks) was not paid under the per-minute rate but could trigger a subsidy to meet weekly minimum wage.
Plaintiff Tiffany Hill sued under Washington's Minimum Wage Act (MWA), arguing agents were hourly employees entitled to minimum wage for each hour worked (no workweek averaging), or alternatively that even if piece-rate, nonproduction time required separate compensation under Lopez Demetrio.
Xerox contended the ABC plan is a piecework (or otherwise nonhourly) compensation system measured in production minutes, permitting workweek averaging under WAC 296-126-021 and thus lawful weekly minimum-wage averaging.
The federal district court treated the agents as hourly employees and denied Xerox summary judgment; the Ninth Circuit certified the narrow state-law question whether a plan using "production minutes" qualifies as piecework under WAC 296-126-021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a compensation plan that uses "production minutes" qualifies as a piecework plan under WAC 296-126-021	Hill: production minutes are clock time and employees are hourly; workweek averaging not permitted; unpaid nonproduction minutes violate MWA	Xerox: production minutes are a unit of output (a piece) tied to productivity; plan is piece-rate permitting workweek averaging	No — the court held actual clock time cannot be used as a piece-rate unit under WAC 296-126-021

Lopez Demetrio v. Sakuma Brothers Farms, 183 Wash.2d 649, 355 P.3d 258 (Wash. 2015) (defines piece-rate as tied to employee output and earned only when actively producing)
Seattle Prof'l Eng'g Emps. Ass'n v. Boeing Co., 139 Wash.2d 824, 991 P.2d 1126 (Wash. 2000) (employer must pay minimum wage for compensable work hours)
Stevens v. Brink's Home Security, Inc., 162 Wash.2d 42, 169 P.3d 473 (Wash. 2007) (contractual denial of pay for on-duty work violated MWA)
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 46 v. City of Everett, 146 Wash.2d 29, 42 P.3d 1265 (Wash. 2002) (MWA to be liberally construed in favor of worker protections)
Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 868 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2017) (certified question to Washington Supreme Court on production minutes as piecework)
Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., 190 Wash.2d 612, 416 P.3d 1205 (Wash. 2018) (agricultural piece-rate workers must receive hourly pay for non-piece-rate work)