John Stewart
Thu, 05/19/2022
On May 6, 2022, a federal court in the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment in favor of flight attendants suing United Airlines, Inc., for violating California’s state wage and hour laws. In Vidrio et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., No. 15-CV-7985 PSG, (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2022), the plaintiff flight attendants alleged that United Airlines failed to give them the comprehensive “Wage Statement” required under California law. Concluding that the “Pay Advice” provided by United Airlines was deficient in one respect as a matter of law, the court granted summary judgment in the flight attendants’ favor, leaving the resulting amount of statutory penalties owed by United Airlines to be determined at trial.
In reaching its ruling, the court rejected United Airlines’ attempt to rely on multiple documents provided to employees to satisfy its obligation under California law, which requires employers to provide a single, comprehensive “Wage Statement.” The court explained that the statute was “designed to help workers determine whether they are paid properly,” a purpose that “would not be served by requiring workers to access a second online document (the Pay Register or MSOE) in order to determine if they have been properly compensated.” Examining the several types of documents presented by United Airlines, the court determined that the “Pay Advice” most closely resembled a “Wage Statement,” as indeed it contained the most required information (i.e., gross wages, deductions, net wages, employee’s name, and employer’s name).
The flight attendants asserted that the Pay Advice failed to meet the required elements of a “Wage Statement” under California law in two ways: (1) failure to include the employer’s address and (2) failure to state all hourly wages in effect during the pay period and the number of hours paid at each such rate. Although the court ruled that the P.O. Box address listed on the Pay Advice was sufficient, it ruled in favor of the flight attendants as to the hourly wage issue. The court acknowledged that “Defendant’s pay scheme is complex, and that complying with § 226(a)(9)’s requirements may not be straightforward. But that complication does not enable the Court to disregard the plain language of § 226(a)(9).”
In other words, the fact that the flight attendants’ pay scheme did not readily distill into an “hourly wage” was no defense to United Airlines’ failure to provide the specific, required information enumerated under California’s wage and hour laws.
This ruling represents a major victory for the flight attendants directly involved in the California lawsuit, but the court’s reasoning may apply equally to other state and local laws with similar notice requirements.
The District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act (“MWRA”), for instance, requires covered employers to provide an “itemized statement” whenever wages are paid, showing the date of the wages paid, the gross wages paid, any deductions, the net wages paid, and the hours worked, among other information. The MWRA also requires, upon hiring and whenever an employee’s rate of pay changes, that the employer provide a written notice including, among other things, the employee’s “rate of pay and the basis of that rate.”
As the flight attendants’ May 6, 2022 victory demonstrates, “Wage Statement” and similar notice requirements should not be taken lightly, in California or elsewhere.
If you think your employer has not been complying with applicable wage and hour laws, please contact us by phone at 202-833-8855 or by email at info@mselaborlaw.com.
