Ornelas v. Tapestry, Inc.
3:18-cv-06453
N.D. Cal.Jul 2, 2021Background
- Plaintiff John Ornelas was a non-exempt hourly sales associate at Stuart Weitzman stores from April 2016 to June 2018.
- Employer Tapestry, Inc. maintained a theft-prevention policy requiring employees to undergo bag/coat searches or obtain a visual acknowledgment before leaving for breaks or at shift end; plaintiff alleges he was told to clock out before screening and sometimes waited off the clock.
- Plaintiff sued in California state court asserting eight wage-and-hour and UCL claims (unpaid wages, minimum wage, overtime, rest/meal breaks, wage statements, waiting-time penalties, UCL, and PAGA penalties); defendant removed and moved for partial summary judgment on several claims.
- At summary judgment, plaintiff conceded his operative complaint alleged break violations only as to security screenings (not other staffing/busyness allegations).
- The employer had a written break policy complying with California law and paid plaintiff over 100 meal-break premiums prophylactically.
- Key legal developments after plaintiff’s employment (Frlekin and Troester) affected whether screening time and federal de minimis principles applied, but those decisions post-dated plaintiff’s tenure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meal-break violations (Cal. Lab. Code §512/226.7) | Security screenings delayed start of meal breaks, shortening them and violating law | Screenings were brief; employee often took >30 minutes; employer provided required opportunity and paid many break premiums | Granted summary judgment for defendant — plaintiff failed to show employer prevented/ discouraged full 30‑minute meal breaks; paid premiums preclude recovery for any limited violations |
| Rest-break violations (Wage Order No.7 §12) | Screenings interrupted or shortened rest breaks and prevented rest in middle of shifts | Employer made rest breaks available; plaintiff admitted usually taking full 10 minutes after acknowledgement; inconsistent testimony insufficient | Granted summary judgment for defendant — no genuine dispute that employer denied or discouraged rest breaks |
| Wage-statement & waiting-time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code §§226, 201–203) — willfulness/knowing/intentional element | Failure to pay for screening time and to reflect compensation on wage statements supports penalties | Employer had a good-faith dispute over compensability (and de minimis) precluding willfulness/knowing intent | Granted summary judgment for defendant — court adopts majority view that reasonable good-faith dispute negates willfulness/knowing intent, so derivative penalties not recoverable |
| Liquidated damages under §1194.2 (claims for unpaid/minimum wages) | Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages for alleged unpaid time | Employer had reasonable, good-faith grounds to believe screening time need not be paid (law unsettled during employment) | Denied as to liquidated damages — triable discretion remains whether to award liquidated damages, so not resolved on summary judgment |
| UCL claim (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) based on breaks | UCL seeks injunctive relief and restitution for unlawful break policies | Plaintiff is no longer an employee so cannot seek injunctive relief; no restitution because plaintiff was not deprived of money/property given no proven break violations | Granted in part — UCL claim based on rest/meal breaks fails because underlying violations fail; injunctive/restitution relief unavailable to former employee |
| PAGA claim for break violations | PAGA can proceed to recover civil penalties on behalf of others even if plaintiff lacks personal injury | Plaintiff lacks Article III standing in federal court to assert PAGA claims for violations he did not personally suffer | Denied as to partial summary judgment; court will hold PAGA claim in abeyance and remand to state court later (Magadia) if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer must provide opportunity for off‑duty 30‑minute meal breaks; may not impede or discourage breaks)
- Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038 (Cal. 2020) (time in mandatory security screening is compensable work)
- Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (Cal. 2018) (federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to California labor claims)
- Magadia v. Wal‑Mart Assocs., Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021) (plaintiff lacks Article III standing in federal court to bring PAGA claims based on violations he did not personally suffer)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for summary judgment — no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's burden and nonmovant's obligation at summary judgment)
- Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co., 125 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (willfulness under waiting-time penalty dispelled by reasonable uncertainty in law)
- Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984) (flexible de minimis standard for compensable time)