120 F. Supp. 3d 1003
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Watterson has been a clerk for Garfield Beach CVS, LLC since June 2005.
- Beginning in 2012/2013, the Plan instituted WellRewards requiring a $50/month surcharge for not completing annual health screening and online wellness review.
- Watterson voluntarily enrolled in the CVS Caremark Welfare Benefit Plan, an optional employee benefit.
- Defendant did not compensate Watterson for time spent on screenings or wellness reviews.
- Plaintiff filed suit in state court alleging five California Labor Code/Business & Professions Code claims; the case was removed to federal court and defendant moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent on health screenings/wellness review is compensable as hours worked | Watterson argues the time is hours worked under Wage Order No. 7 | Defendant contends enrollment in the Plan was voluntary and time is not subject to employer control | Not compensable; Watterson was not subject to Defendant's control while completing the screenings. |
| Whether enrollment in the Plan was voluntary and thus not within the employer’s control | Argues enrollment was effectively required by plan terms or benefits | Enrollment was voluntary and not tied to employment conditions | Enrollment was voluntary; plan terms did not render the activity compensable. |
| Whether Plaintiff’s expenses related to the Plan are indemnifiable under California Labor Code § 2802 | Expenses were incurred in relation to discharge of duties | No direct consequence to discharge of duties; actions were voluntary | Not indemnifiable under § 2802; expenses not tied to discharge of duties. |
| Whether the fourth and fifth causes of action survive given the first two fail | Claims are derivative of wage/indemnity issues | If first/second fail, these fail as well | Dismissed as derivative of the first two claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (hours worked includes time spent on employer-controlled transportation; but not time spent on optional transportation)
- Overton v. Walt Disney Co., 136 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. App. 2006) (whether employer-required transportation must be compensated; key factor is employer control)
- Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Sols., Inc., 60 Cal.4th 883 (Cal. 2015) (on-call time factors; whether waiting time primarily benefits employer)