544 P.3d 1118
Cal.2024Background
- Plaintiff George Huerta was employed at the California Flats Solar Project, working for a subcontractor of CSI Electrical Contractors.
- Workers accessed the site by entering through a Security Gate with vehicle checks, and then driving several miles to employee parking lots; entry and exit included security procedures such as badge scanning and vehicle inspections.
- Safety and environmental rules, as well as employment-specific restrictions, applied during transit between the gate and parking lots.
- Huerta, covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), was required to take unpaid meal periods onsite and was not allowed to leave during those times.
- Huerta filed a class action seeking pay for time spent during security checks, driving onsite subject to rules, and unpaid meal periods when not fully relieved of employer control.
- The Ninth Circuit certified three legal questions to the California Supreme Court regarding interpretation of California wage orders and their application to these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is time waiting in a personal vehicle undergoing employer-mandated security checks compensable as "hours worked"? | Huerta argued he was under employer control during mandatory exit procedures, so this time is compensable. | CSI argued the procedure is akin to swiping out or passing through a gate, not compensable as work time. | Time awaiting and undergoing mandatory exit security procedures (including vehicle inspection) is compensable as "hours worked." |
| 2. Is drive time between Security Gate and employee parking lots on employer premises, while subject to rules, compensable as "hours worked" or "employer-mandated travel"? | Huerta claimed employer-imposed rules/control during the drive made it compensable; the Security Gate was a required first stop. | CSI argued drive time was ordinary commuting with basic rules for order/safety, not sufficient control for compensation. | Drive time is not compensable as "hours worked" (rules aren't control), but may be compensable as "employer-mandated travel" only if the Security Gate required presence for employment reasons beyond mere site access. |
| 3. Is an unpaid meal period compensable when workers are prohibited from leaving the premises and thus subject to employer control, under a qualifying CBA? | Asserted restriction on leaving site transforms meal period into compensable "hours worked" (control). | CSI contended that under qualifying CBAs, meal periods can be unpaid even if employee is restricted from leaving. | If employer prohibits leaving during meal periods and this prevents participation in feasible personal activities, time is compensable as "hours worked," even under a qualifying CBA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038 (Cal. 2020) (control clause requires compensation for time employees are subject to employer's security checks)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (compulsory employer-chosen travel is compensable as "hours worked"; ordinary commute is not)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (defines requirements for a valid off-duty meal period, including freedom to leave premises)
- Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 833 (Cal. 2015) (employee must be free to use time for personal purposes to avoid employer control)
- Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257 (Cal. 2016) (employee control during breaks; freedom to use break time is key)
- Bono Enterprises, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 32 Cal.App.4th 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (control during unpaid meal period requires compensation)