McKenzie v. Federal Express Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48707
| C.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- McKenzie worked as a FedEx hourly truck driver from 2003 to 2009 and received weekly wage statements showing OvrTimePrm, Overtime, and Reg Earn.
- The wage statements listed hours by category but did not specify a separate total hours worked for the pay period.
- Beginning in December 2009, wage statements began to include a beginning date; prior to that, only the end date was shown.
- FedEx controlled the wage statement format and its pay week was Sunday–Saturday; employees had to rely on schedules or manuals to identify the exact period.
- McKenzie provided written notice of alleged Labor Code violations in 2009; the LWDA declined to investigate, and the case was removed to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FedEx violated 226(a)(2) with total hours shown | McKenzie contends the wage statements failed to show total hours worked. | FedEx argues Morgan allows separate listing of regular and overtime hours satisfies 226(a)(2). | FedEx violated 226(a)(2). |
| Whether FedEx violated 226(a)(6) by omitting beginning dates | McKenzie argues beginning dates were required on wage statements. | FedEx contends Morgan shows sufficient information to make dates evident. | FedEx violated 226(a)(6) until December 2009; beginning dates were later added. |
| Whether FedEx violated 226(a)(9) by inaccurate rates/hours | McKenzie asserts wage statements failed to show all applicable hourly rates and hours at each rate. | FedEx argues the two overtime categories and rates complied with 226(a)(9). | FedEx violated 226(a)(9). |
| Whether PAGA penalties may be awarded without 226(e) injury and class certification | McKenzie seeks PAGA penalties for 226(a) violations and argues injury need not be proven under 226(e). | FedEx argues injury under 226(e) is required and class certification is needed. | McKenzie may recover PAGA penalties for 226(a) violations without proving 226(e) injury; class certification not required for summary judgment on PAGA. |
| Whether 1198-based PAGA claim is viable | McKenzie asserts Wage Order dates violate 1198 via wage statements. | FedEx argues 1198 applies to conditions of labor, not wage-statement content. | Second cause of action under 1198 is granted summary judgment for FedEx. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. United Retail, Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 1136 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (interpretation of 226(a)(2) total hours; separate hours may be acceptable if total is verifiable)
- Lopez v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., 2010 WL 2839417 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (beginning/end dates required; wage statements must show inclusive dates)
- Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 2007) (standing and merits sequencing in class/representative actions)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (standing requires injury in fact and loss of money or property under Prop. 64)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (PAGA does not require class certification; represents state enforcement action)
- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. App. 4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (Wage Orders; wage-statement provisions fall under wages, not hours/conditions)
- Bright v. 99cents Only Stores, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (Wage Order violations and 1198 penalties in some contexts)
- Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1136 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (PAGA-related considerations in context of other claims)