Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
354 F. Supp. 3d 1136
C.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiff Lerna Mays sued Walmart on behalf of putative California employee classes alleging multiple Labor Code violations, including defective wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(8)) and untimely final wages; she later added a PAGA representative claim.
- The district court previously denied class certification and dismissed the wage-statement claim for lack of Article III standing, with leave to amend; Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) adding PAGA counts.
- FAC alleges Walmart listed the payroll entity "Wal‑Mart Associates, Inc." (and a Walmart logo) on pay stubs instead of the employer "Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc.," causing employee confusion and injury; Plaintiff attached pay stubs and a Notice to Employee showing differing names/addresses.
- Walmart moved for judgment on the pleadings (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)) arguing: (1) the wage statements complied with § 226(a)(8) and Plaintiff lacks Article III standing; and (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust PAGA administrative notice requirements for some theories.
- The court treated the motion under the Rule 12(c) standard, accepted FAC allegations and attached documents as true, and considered judicially‑noticeable Secretary of State records showing multiple Walmart entities at the same address.
- Holding: the court denied Walmart’s motion in full — finding the FAC plausibly alleges a § 226(a)(8) violation, shows a knowing/intentional failure and resulting injury for § 226(e), and that Plaintiff’s LWDA notice satisfied PAGA exhaustion for the wage‑statement and reporting‑time theories; the court dismissed only the PAGA theory based on employment‑records because Plaintiff conceded she was not pursuing it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wage statements violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(8) by listing "Wal‑Mart Associates, Inc." rather than "Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc." | The different name and use of the payroll entity rendered the wage statements confusing and failed to identify the legal employer. | The listed name was a permissible truncated or identifying name and thus complied with § 226(a)(8). | Denied Walmart’s motion: pleaded facts (including documents and public records) plausibly show the name was confusing among distinct entities and thus a § 226(a)(8) violation. |
| Whether Plaintiff pleaded a "knowing and intentional" failure under § 226(e) | Walmart’s repeated practices and attached pay stubs support an inference of more than clerical errors. | Alleged naming differences were inadvertent or immaterial. | Denied Walmart’s motion: general allegations plus attached omissions suffice at pleading stage to show conduct beyond isolated clerical error. |
| Whether Plaintiff suffered the "resulting injury" required by § 226(e) | Confusion about the actual employer and inability to determine employer identity from pay stubs alone are concrete injuries. | Plaintiff’s asserted confusion is too speculative and merely procedural. | Denied Walmart’s motion: court finds Plaintiff plausibly cannot promptly and easily determine her employer from the pay stub, satisfying § 226(e) injury. |
| Whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies under PAGA | LWDA notice identified § 226 violations and included factual examples (e.g., missing inclusive pay dates) and sought penalties on behalf of the State and impacted employees. | LWDA notice failed to give facts/theories for the specific wage‑statement theories (e.g., employer name/address) and reporting‑time claims on behalf of other employees. | Denied Walmart’s partial motion: notice provided sufficient facts/theories to put LWDA and Walmart on notice for § 226 claims and reporting‑time PAGA relief; PAGA claim based on employment‑records was dismissed per Plaintiff’s concession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (concrete injury required for Article III standing even for statutory violations)
- Elliot v. Spherion Pacific Work, LLC, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (truncated corporate name on wage stubs did not violate § 226(a)(8) where name/address clearly identified employer)
- Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal. App. 4th 949 (wage statements that lack the employer's legal name and address can violate § 226(a)(8))
- Alcantar v. Hobart Service, 800 F.3d 1047 (PAGA LWDA notice must include basic facts and theories so LWDA can assess alleged violations)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (procedures governing LWDA review and employee suit under PAGA)