Sperry v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.., 3:13-cv-00906

Background

Taunya Sperry worked as a roaming security guard/EMT at USS‑POSCO on 12‑ and 24‑hour shifts under a multi‑employer CBA and separate "side" agreements permitting 12‑ and 24‑hour schedules.
For each 24‑hour shift Sperry was paid 20 hours at straight time and not paid for 4 hours characterized as "sleep time"/downtime; she remained on‑site and had to respond to emergencies within ~2 minutes (double‑time if called during downtime).
Sperry sued under the FLSA and California law for unpaid hours/overtime, missed meal and rest breaks (and related wage statement and UCL claims); Securitas moved for partial summary judgment.
Key disputed legal points: whether the 4‑hour sleep/downtime is compensable work under the FLSA; whether the CBA or side agreement exempts Sperry from California daily overtime and meal/rest requirements; whether certain claims are LMRA §301‑preempted; and whether on‑duty meal periods are an affirmative defense.
The court reviewed DOL sleeping‑period guidance (29 C.F.R. §785.22), California precedents on sleep time and CBAs, and procedural issues about affirmative defenses and discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FLSA overtime — compensability of 4‑hour sleep/downtime during 24‑hr shifts	Downtime was not bona fide sleep time; whole 24 hours are compensable so overtime due	Downtime was excluded by agreement and non‑compensable; parties agreed to 4‑hr sleep exclusion	Denied Securitas’ SJ: DOL regs (esp. 5‑hour uninterrupted sleep rule) persuasive; genuine dispute but regs support finding entire 24‑hr shift compensable here
California overtime (§510) and §514 CBA exemption	Sperry says CBA fails §514 because sleep time unpaid (hourly rate not effectively ≥130% min wage per hour) and side agreement may be invalid	Securitas says CBA/side agreement satisfies §514 (rates and overtime terms) and defines overtime as weekly >40 hours	Denied Securitas’ SJ: material fact disputes and legal defect — unpaid sleep time prevents §514 exemption and existence/validity of side agreement is disputed
Meal periods (Cal. Lab. Code §512 / Wage Order) — on‑duty meal period defense	Sperry contends she was not provided lawful off‑duty meal periods	Securitas says Sperry signed on‑duty meal agreement and her duties required on‑duty meal periods	Denied Securitas’ SJ: employer bears burden to prove on‑duty meal period justification; Securitas failed to plead it as affirmative defense and may amend Answer; factual dispute remains
Rest periods (Wage Order §12) — sufficiency of breaks	Sperry says she was not authorized/relieved for required rest breaks during 24‑hr shifts	Securitas points to CBA language and Sperry’s admissions of taking many breaks / DARs showing breaks	Denied Securitas’ SJ: factual disputes exist whether employer authorized required 60 minutes per 24‑hr shift; evidence must be construed for Sperry
Wage statement (§226) & UCL (§17200) tied to underlying wage violations	Errors in pay (unpaid hours) render wage statements inaccurate and practices unlawful	Securitas says these derivative claims fail if underlying claims fail	Denied Securitas’ SJ: underlying claims survive, so derivative claims survive

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute / view evidence most favorably to nonmoving party)
Brigham v. Eugene Water & Elec. Bd., 357 F.3d 931 (9th Cir.) (on‑call/waiting time compensability; courts look to DOL regs)
Owens v. Local No. 169, Ass’n of W. Pulp & Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.) (degree of freedom and parties’ agreements are primary factors)
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (weight of agency interpretations depends on persuasiveness)
Allis‑Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (preemption where claim substantially depends on CBA interpretation)
Gregory v. SCIE, LLC, 317 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.) (LMRA preemption / distinguishing rights created by state law vs. CBA)
Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (two‑step §301 preemption analysis)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (preemption framework)
Firestone v. S. California Gas Co., 219 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.) (preemption where CBA terms central and disputed)
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer obligation is to provide, not police, meal and rest breaks)
Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., 194 Cal. App. 4th 361 (Cal. Ct. App.) (California follows federal sleep‑time guidance for 24‑hour shifts)