Roderick Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates
999 F.3d 668
9th Cir.2021Background
- Magadia worked at Walmart (2008–2016); after termination he sued on behalf of classes and under PAGA alleging (1) wage-statement omissions for a quarterly MyShare overtime adjustment (Cal. Lab. Code §226(a)(9)), (2) missing pay-period dates on the Statement of Final Pay (§226(a)(6)), and (3) underpayment for missed meal breaks by not including MyShare in the regular rate (§226.7(c)).
- Walmart reports MyShare bonuses quarterly and shows a retroactive overtime adjustment as a lump-sum "OVERTIME/INCT" on quarter-end pay statements without an hourly rate or hours for that adjustment.
- At district court Walmart lost on the two §226 claims, the meal-break class was decertified as to Magadia personally (he proved no personal meal-break injury) but the court nonetheless awarded PAGA penalties for meal-break violations affecting other employees; total award ≈ $101.9 million.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit (1) held Magadia lacked Article III standing to pursue a PAGA meal-break claim because he personally suffered no injury and PAGA is not a traditional qui tam assignment that confers relator standing for uninjured plaintiffs, and remanded that claim to state court; and (2) held Magadia had Article III standing to assert the §226 informational claims but reversed the district court on the merits of those claims, ruling Walmart did not violate §226(a).
- Court explained that §226(a) creates an actionable informational injury but that (a) the retroactive MyShare overtime adjustment is not an "hourly rate in effect during the pay period" under §226(a)(9) and (b) employers may provide required pay-period dates either semimonthly or at each wage payment, so Walmart’s practice for final pay complied with §226(a)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring PAGA meal-break claim (uninjured relator) | Magadia argued PAGA is a qui tam statute allowing him to pursue penalties on behalf of the state/others even without personal injury. | Walmart argued Article III requires plaintiff to show personal injury; PAGA is not a traditional qui tam assignment that supplies standing for uninjured relators. | Held: No Article III standing for Magadia on the PAGA meal-break claim; PAGA departs from traditional qui tam features and does not permit uninjured relator standing; remand to state court. |
| Standing for §226 informational wage-statement claims | Magadia argued omissions of required wage-statement details cause an informational injury sufficient for Article III standing. | Walmart contended absence of pecuniary loss means no concrete injury under Article III. | Held: Magadia has Article III standing; informational injuries under §226 can be concrete where omission creates a material risk of harm to the statutory informational interest. |
| §226(a)(9): Must employer list an hourly rate and hours for the MyShare overtime adjustment? | Magadia argued the retroactive overtime adjustment is compensation tied to overtime and so §226(a)(9) requires listing the corresponding hourly rate and hours. | Walmart argued the MyShare overtime adjustment is a retroactive, after-the-fact calculation across the quarter (six pay periods) and not an "hourly rate in effect during the pay period." | Held: Walmart did not violate §226(a)(9); the MyShare overtime adjustment is not an hourly rate "in effect during the pay period" and thus need not be shown with hourly rate/hours on semimonthly statements. |
| §226(a)(6): Must the employer include pay-period dates on the Statement of Final Pay at termination? | Magadia argued the Statement of Final Pay lacked the inclusive pay-period dates and thus violated §226(a)(6). | Walmart argued §226(a)(6) allows employers to provide wage statements semimonthly or at each wage payment, and it furnished dates in the subsequent semimonthly final wage statement. | Held: Walmart complied with §226(a)(6); statute’s disjunctive timing permits furnishing the required dates semimonthly, so omission on the immediate Statement of Final Pay was not a violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (informational/injury analysis for concreteness)
- Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (qui tam and assignment theory for relator standing)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (private authorization to litigate third-party interests does not alone satisfy Article III)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (PAGA as a California private attorney general scheme)
- Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of Cal., 4 Cal. 5th 542 (California law on regular rate and overtime adjustments)
- Lee v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.: no Article III standing for uninjured private attorney general plaintiff)
- Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125 (informational injury under wage-statement law can be cognizable)
- Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (class members must individually satisfy Article III standing for monetary relief)