153 F. Supp. 3d 1094
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Delta employs Flight Attendants to operate domestic and international flights; as of 2015 Delta had about 21,689 U.S. flight attendants and a network of hubs including ATL, LAX, DTW, MSP, LGA, JFK, SLC, and SEA.
- Flight Attendants bid monthly on Rotations based on seniority, causing schedules to fluctuate.
- A Rotation's Duty Period includes pre-flight duties, in-flight time, Turn Time, and deplaning; Turn Time is paid and considered Duty Time.
- Bid Packets disclose Rotations, Duty Periods, Report Times, total flight time, away-from-base time, and which of Delta’s four pay formulas applies; the packets provide a minimum compensation guarantee.
- Delta uses four pay formulas—Flight Pay, Duty Period Credit, Minimum Duty Period Credit, and Trip Credit—and pays the highest applicable value for each Rotation, ensuring compensation for all hours worked; Delta contends this yields pay above California minimum wage.
- The court applies California Wage Order 9-2001 and law regarding hours worked, and analyzes Delta’s scheme against California case law and the DeSaint decision to assess compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Delta’s four pay formulas pay for all hours worked in California? | Oman/Eichmann contend hours worked are not fully compensated. | Delta argues formulas account for all hours and guarantee pay above minimum wage. | Delta’s formulas cover all hours and exceed CA minimum wage. |
| Is the Flight Pay Rate a guaranteed hourly wage under CA law? | Flight Pay Rate guarantees pay at that rate for each hour. | Flight Pay Rate is a starting point, not a guaranteed hourly wage; computation uses multiple formulas. | Flight Pay Rate is not a guaranteed hourly wage; it is part of a calculation to determine total Rotation pay. |
| Are the four formulas impermissibly “averaging” or “built-in” compensation for unpaid tasks? | Arguments rely on Armenia-like concerns about unreimbursed time. | Formulas expressly account for all hours worked and directly compensate for duties. | Not impermissible; the scheme directly compensates for all hours and uses disclosed formulas. |
| Should California law apply and was Delta’s approach consistent with CA wage rules? | Delta’s approach complies with CA wage order and case law; no post-hoc averaging. | CA wage rules are satisfied; summary judgment for Delta on CA wage claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (no averaging allowed; all hours must be paid at least minimum wage; nonproductive time cannot be offset by higher pay for other hours)
- Cardenas v. McLane FoodServices, Inc., 796 F.Supp.2d 1246 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (pre/post-shift duties cannot be subsumed into piece-rate wages under CA law)
- Balasanyan v. Nordstrom, Inc., 913 F.Supp.2d 1001 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (courts reject built-in compensation for non-sell time; must directly compensate all time spent)
- Gonzalez v. Downtown, LA Motors, LP, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (rejects piece-rate schemes that leave time unpaid for non-task activities)