Pellino v. Brink's Inc.
267 P.3d 383
Wash. Ct. App. U2011Background
- Pellino filed a class action on April 24, 2007 alleging Brink's violated the IWA and WAC by denying meal and rest breaks to armored truck crews.
- Armored crews consist of a driver and a messenger; both roles require guarding valuables and carrying firearms.
- Routes involve multiple stops, with priority on security and timely completion, including bank-outs and ATM servicing.
- Class certification was granted for 182 drivers and messengers in Seattle or Tacoma from April 26, 2004 to October 31, 2007.
- The trial court found evidence of a classwide pattern of inadequate breaks and awarded back pay, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees; Brink's appealed on class certification, interpretation of breaks, and expert reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class was properly certified | Pellino asserts commonality/predominance support class claims | Brink's argues lack of uniform break policy defeats common issues | No; class certification upheld |
| Whether Brink's violated rest and meal break requirements | Breaks were not provided because crews were always on active guarding duties | On-duty paid breaks permitted under regulation; breaks can be interrupted | Yes; class members lacked lawful breaks under WAC 296-126-092 |
| Whether expert testimony supported damages and liability findings | Abbott and Munson provided a reasonable basis for damages | Testimony flawed or unreliable | Yes; expert testimony properly relied upon and damages awarded |
| Whether there was waiver of breaks | No evidence of knowing waiver by class members | Waiver valid if voluntary | No; no evidence of knowing waiver found |
Key Cases Cited
- Wingert v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 146 Wash.2d 841 (Wash. 2002) (interprets rest-break requirements under WAC 296-126-092(4))
- White v. Salvation Army, 118 Wash.App. 272 (Wash. App. 2003) (on-duty breaks may still require relief from exertion; on-call doesn't erase breaks)
- Iverson v. Snohomish County, 117 Wash.App. 618 (Wash. App. 2003) (on-call during meals; factual record determines consideration of time spent working)
- Frese v. Snohomish County, 129 Wash.App. 659 (Wash. App. 2005) (on-call during lunch; cannot demand unremitting work through the lunch period)
- Jones v. Best, 134 Wash.2d 232 (Wash. 1998) (waiver burden on employer; can waive meal periods but not rest breaks)