West v. Bam! Pizza Management, Inc.
1:22-cv-00209
| D.N.M. | Jul 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Belka worked as a Domino's pizza delivery driver in Colorado from 2019-2020 and alleges he never received duty-free, uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks or 10-minute paid rest breaks per shift, as required by Colorado law.
- Belka, on behalf of a putative class of Colorado delivery drivers, sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Colorado Wage Act (CWA), and Colorado Wage Order (CWO), seeking damages for missed meal and rest breaks and related relief.
- Defendants required employees to take on-duty paid meal breaks, rather than off-duty, unpaid ones, and allegedly failed to inform employees of their right to off-duty meal breaks.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Count Six (alleging denial of off-duty meal/rest breaks in violation of the CWO), primarily disputing the interpretation of the CWO and the applicable statute of limitations.
- The court reviewed whether the statute mandates off-duty meal breaks absent impracticality, whether damages are available in the absence of unpaid wages, and which statute of limitations applies to the claims.
- The court granted the motion as to the meal break claim (for lack of viable damages) but denied it as to the rest-break claim and held a six-year statute of limitations applies pending further guidance from the Colorado Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the CWO require uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute meal breaks absent impracticality? | Belka: Yes, the law mandates duty-free meal breaks with narrow exception; Defendants’ policy violates this right. | Defendants: Employers can choose between off-duty unpaid or on-duty paid meal breaks; compensated on-duty breaks comply with the law. | The law unambiguously mandates duty-free meal breaks unless impractical; Defendants' universal on-duty policy violates the rule. |
| Can Plaintiff recover damages if paid for all hours worked, including on-duty meal breaks? | Belka: Damages available for missed meal breaks, possibly equivalent to pay for break time or other measures. | Defendants: No damages possible; all time is compensated, and the law only provides for unpaid wage recovery. | Dismissed: No damages available if all hours compensated; CWO provides remedy only for unpaid wages, which are not alleged. |
| Does Plaintiff have standing to seek equitable relief? | Belka: Requests equitable/other forms of relief for himself/class. | Defendants: Plaintiff lacks standing for injunctive/equitable relief as he's no longer employed. | No standing for equitable relief after employment ends. |
| What is the applicable statute of limitations for rest-break claims? | Belka: Six-year catch-all statute applies; seeks broader period for class. | Defendants: Three-year limit applies or ruling should await state supreme court in Perez. | Six-year statute applied for rest-break claim, pending possible state supreme court revision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standards for plausibility in pleadings)
- Associated Gov’ts of Nw. Colo. v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 275 P.2d 646 ("shall" language denotes a mandate in statutory interpretation)
- Bly v. Story, 241 P.3d 529 (plain language and legislative intent in Colorado statutory construction)
- Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Center, Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (give effect to every word in a statute)
- Murphy v. Smith, 583 U.S. 220 ("shall" creates a mandate, not a choice)
- Fernandez v. Clean House, LLC, 883 F.3d 1296 (affirmative defenses not to be resolved at motion to dismiss)
- Youren v. Tintic Sch. Dist., 343 F.3d 1296 (relief forms in statutes are exclusive if specified)
- Williams v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 369 P.3d 760 (statutory specification excludes other remedies)