Silva v. See's Candy Shops, Inc.
7 Cal. App. 5th 235
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Pamela Silva sued See's Candy alleging wage-and-hour violations individually, on behalf of a class, and under PAGA; the court certified a class limited to challenges to See's rounding (nearest tenth/hour) and 10-minute grace-period policies.
- See's Candy defended that its Kronos timekeeping, rounding, and voluntary grace-period policies fairly and neutrally measured compensable time; it submitted large-scale statistical studies by Dr. Ali Saad showing no aggregate underpayment.
- Silva alleged additional individual claims (missed meal/rest breaks, lack of reimbursement) and submitted her own declaration describing busy holiday shifts and missed breaks; she also offered an expert whose declaration was stricken below.
- After this court's earlier writ decision reinstating See's Candy’s rounding defense standard, the trial court granted summary adjudication dismissing Silva’s PAGA claim and later granted summary judgment for See's Candy on the remaining claims.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the PAGA claim and the class-based rounding/grace-period claims, but reversed summary judgment as to Silva’s individual meal/rest-break and reimbursement claims and directed limited further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of rounding policy (class) | Rounding systematically undercompensates employees | Rounding to nearest tenth is facially neutral and statistically unbiased | Rounding policy lawful; summary judgment for See's Candy affirmed |
| Lawfulness of grace-period policy (class) | Employees were under employer control during grace period and worked unpaid | Grace period is voluntary; employees not under employer control; managers adjust pay if work performed | Grace-period policy lawful as applied; summary judgment for See's Candy affirmed |
| PAGA claim (notice and other bases) | LWDA notice was adequate; PAGA can cover rounding/grace-period theories and other alleged Labor Code violations | LWDA notice deficient; PAGA claims otherwise unsupported or abandoned | PAGA claim dismissed; court affirmed dismissal because underlying rounding/grace claims fail and other PAGA theories were abandoned |
| Individual claims for missed meal/rest breaks and expense reimbursement | Silva provided declaration alleging missed breaks and unreimbursed expenses | See's Candy argued plaintiff released individual claims and did not plead them; no separate summary adjudication was noticed | Court of Appeal: trial court erred to adjudicate those individual claims by summary judgment because See's Candy hadn't moved on them; reversed as to those claims and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (adopted federal "fair and neutral" test for rounding policies)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (defining "under employer control" for compensable time)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (PAGA requires proof of underlying Labor Code violations)
- Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying neutrality test to rounding practices)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 138 Cal.App.4th 96 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (using factually deficient interrogatory responses to meet summary adjudication burden)