Rojas-Cifuentes v. Am. Modular Systems CA3, C088775

Background

AMS (American Modular Systems) manufactures modular classrooms in Manteca and installs them at school sites statewide; shop shifts are scheduled 6:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m. with a short ‘‘grace period’’ allowing employees to punch in a few minutes early but prohibiting work before the bell.
Rojas worked for AMS briefly in 2014 and sued in 2015 asserting multiple class claims and a PAGA claim; he sought class certification for three claims at issue on appeal: (1) prevailing-wage liability for travel time to public-works sites, (2) unpaid wages based on punch-card time due to AMS’s grace-period pay practice, and (3) untimely meal periods caused by early punches.
The trial court denied certification of all three classes, finding individualized issues predominated—notably concluding (as a matter of law) that travel time was not compensable unless employees were required to use company vehicles.
Rojas appealed; the Court of Appeal reviewed class-certification standards (Brinker framework) and the trial court’s reliance on individualized inquiries and certain legal assumptions.
The Court of Appeal reversed in part: it found the trial court misstated the law on travel-time compensation for temporary/distant assignments and remanded the prevailing-wage class for further proceedings; it affirmed the denial of class certification for the unpaid-wage (timecard) and meal-period classes.
The remand was limited to reconsideration of the prevailing-wage travel-time class in light of applicable federal guidance and DLSE/DIR interpretations; parties to bear their own costs on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prevailing-wage travel time (class)	Travel time to public-works sites is compensable at prevailing wage; AMS failed to pay prevailing wage for travel to distant sites	Travel time is not compensable as a matter of law unless employees are required by contract to travel in company vehicles; contracts vary so individualized issues predominate	Trial court erred to the extent it held travel time noncompensable ‘‘as a matter of law’’; federal law and DLSE guidance show travel for temporary/distant assignments can be compensable. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of class certification on this claim
Unpaid wages based on punch cards (class)	Employees are ‘‘on the clock’’ once they punch in, so pay should be based on punch times rather than scheduled times	AMS’s policy prohibits work during the grace period; many employees testified they did not work before the bell; must resolve individualized facts about whether employees actually worked	Denial of class certification affirmed. Court found Troester does not mandate that punch times automatically equal compensable work time; predominance problems remain
Meal-period violations (class)	Early punching causes meal periods to fall after five hours, creating a class-wide violation	Whether an employee actually worked during the early punch period is fact-specific; evidence shows variability and individualized inquiries are required	Denial of class certification affirmed. The meal-period claim ‘‘rises and falls’’ with the unpaid-wage/timecard theory and suffers the same predominance issues

Key Cases Cited

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (class-certification standards and community-of-interest rules)
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (employer control test for compensable travel time)
Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (shuttle/commute time not compensable when employee choice removes employer control)
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (Cal. 2018) (de minimis/off-the-clock work principles; punch times not dispositive)
Silva v. See’s Candy Shops, Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (grace-period policy: prohibiting work during grace period can support noncompensable status where employer exercised no control)
Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038 (Cal. 2020) (commuting generally not part of a day’s work)
Imada v. City of Hercules, 138 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) (FLSA: ordinary home-to-work travel not compensable)
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (time necessarily spent walking to workstations after clocking can be compensable)