Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) - which I won't spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations - addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite.
The Huerta Case
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:
Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.
As you can see from the questions, the situations where these questions would rise to the level of being worthwhile to adjudicate in the courts, are quite limited. But, in the Huerta case, we do have some unusual facts:
CSI Electrical Contractors was hired to provide procurement, installation, construction and testing services at a large 280 megawatt privately-owned solar power facility spanning across Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. Access to the worksite required that employees travel several miles past a guard shack located at the perimeter of the site to a security gate where employees would be scanned in and from there a 10 to 15 minute drive to employee-designated parking lots. When exiting the worksite, employees would take the same road from the employee-designated parking lots to the security gate where they would be scanned out and their vehicles visually checked for stolen tools and endangered species. The exit procedure could take a minute to over 30 minutes depending on the number of vehicles existing. Further, because two endangered species were located on the worksite, travel on the road was limited to no more than 20 miles per hour, and each morning a biologist was required to ensure that no endangered species were on the road between the guard shack the parking lots. Finally, employees were subject to two collective bargaining agreements that provided for a 30 minute unpaid meal period, but CSI did not allow workers to leave the worksite. Whew!
Employee George Huerta filed a wage and hour class action in the Superior Court of Monterey County claiming that employees should be paid for the time spent driving between the security gate and the employee-designated parking lots and for their 30-minute meal period since they were not permitted to leave the worksite. The lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California where CSI filed two partial motions for summary judgment that were granted by the court. Huerta then appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal which certified questions to the California Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court Opinion
I won't go into the rationale of the California Supreme Court's opinion since it is its opinion that counts. However, I will provide some context as to the legal backdrop.
The California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") regulates wages, hours and working conditions in California. It does so primarily through wage orders. IWC Wage Order No. 16-2001 sets wages, hours and working conditions in the construction, drilling and mining industries and requires employers in these industries to pay their employees certain minimum wages for "hours worked." 8 CCR §11160. "Hours worked" is defined as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Id. At issue in this case was what constitutes "hours worked" and, more specifically, whether the three questions posed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal constitute "time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer."
Based on the foregoing, the California Supreme answered the three questions as follows:
Time spent by an employee waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite is compensable as "hours worked."
Time spent by an employee traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots is notcompensable as "hours worked" but is compensable as "employer-mandated travel." The practical result, however, is the same. It is compensable.
Time spent by an employee during meal periods is compensable as "hours worked" if they are not permitted to leave a worksite, even if a collective bargaining agreement provides that such meal periods were to be unpaid .
Conclusion
The Huerta case likely has limited applicability to most employers in the construction industry given its specific facts. However, if employees are subject to lengthy screening and security protocols, or not allowed to leave a worksite for meal periods, the time an employee spends during those activities are likely compensable under Huerta.
Comentários