AYALA v. XPRESS ENTERPRISES INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-22No. No. 20-55981

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining claims.

Truck drivers employed by U.S. Xpress challenged a partial summary judgment ruling that went against their wage claims under California law. The dispute centered on whether the company properly compensated drivers for nonproductive time when using a piece-rate pay system. The court examined California Labor Code section 226.2, which requires separate compensation for nonproductive time in piece-rate arrangements, and concluded that the statute permits employers and employees to define the scope of piece-rate compensation through their contractual understanding rather than through the pay formula alone.

The court looked to the parties' actual agreement to interpret what work the piece-rate payment covered. The company's driver handbook stated that mileage pay was compensation for completing trips and delivering loads, and the driver's own testimony aligned with this understanding. Based on this mutual understanding, the court found no error in granting summary judgment to the employer for the time period after the handbook was published.

The court declined to expand its review beyond the single certified question, noting that other disputed issues remained factually contested and unsuitable for summary judgment. The case was returned to the district court for continued litigation of the remaining claims.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Definition of 'other nonproductive time' under California Labor Code section 226.2
Whether piece-rate compensation scope is determined by contract or statutory formula
Propriety of summary judgment when material facts remain in dispute

Procedural posture

The drivers appealed an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment to the employer on certified wage claims under California law.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM *

Anthony Ayala and a certified class of long-haul truck drivers appeal an order of the district court granting partial summary judgment to U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “USX”) on the classs wage claims under California law. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we review de novo an interlocutory appeal of an order of the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and affirm.

1. California Labor Code section 226.2 requires an employer who pays by the piece to provide separate compensation for “other nonproductive time.” Ayala argues that “other nonproductive time” must be defined by reference to the pay formula alone. However, “[t]he minimum wage laws exist to ensure that workers receive adequate and fair pay, not to dictate to employers and employees what pay formulas they may, or may not, agree to adopt as a means to that end.” Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 762, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 20, 466 P.3d 325, 341 (2020). Because “[t]he compensation owed employees is a matter determined primarily by contract,” id., 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 20, 466 P.3d at 336, section 226.2 permits an employer and its employees to define the scope of its piece-rate compensation system.

Accordingly, the district court did not err in looking to the understanding of the parties to determine the scope of the piece-rate pay. See id., 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 20, 466 P.3d at 337–38. USXs 2013 Driver Handbook states that “[USX] pays drivers the designated mileage rate as compensation for completing a trip and delivering a load on behalf of [USX].” Ayalas testimony—that the load pay “cover[ed] everything I got to do in order to get it there”—confirms the understanding of the parties. The district court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment to USX for the time period following the publication of the 2013 Driver Handbook.

2. Although the district court certified only one question on appeal, both Ayala and USX invite us to extend our review further. We decline to exercise our discretion to do so when the district court denied summary judgment because the legal questions turn on disputed issues of material facts yet to be determined. The parties may continue litigating their remaining claims before the district court and develop the record further.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for further proceedings. Costs to Defendants/Appellees.