Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 CHARLES E. WARD, 9 Plaintiff, No. C 15-02309 WHA 10 v. 11 UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ORDER RE MOTION TO MODIFY CLASS DEFINITION ON REMAND 12 Defendant. 13 14 This case returns after a trip to our court of appeals and the California Supreme Court. 15 Prior orders detailed the facts (Dkt. No. 78). In brief, United Airlines has paid its pilot using 16 wage statements that plaintiff alleges do not comply with California Labor Code Section 226. 17 We previously certified a class of United pilots who live in California and pay California 18 income taxes (Dkt. No. 44). Then, our summary judgment order found for defendant on the 19 grounds that (1) these pilots did not work primarily in California and (2) applying Section 226 20 to this class would violate the dormant commerce clause. Defendant appealed. 21 Our court of appeals certified two questions to this state’s supreme court. The first asked 22 whether Section 226 applies to pilots who entered a collective bargaining agreement applying 23 federal law, namely Wage Order No. 9. See Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 732, 743 24 (2020). 25 The second asked whether Section 226 applies to those who perform most work outside 26 of California. The California Supreme Court answered, “Yes,” to the first question. Id. at 749. 27 To the second, the justices replied: the employee's principal place of work is in California. This test is 1 satisfied if the employee works a majority of the time in California 2 or, for interstate transportation workers whose work is not primarily performed in any single state, if the worker has his or her base of 3 work operations in California. 4 Id. at 760–61. Our court of appeals adopted those answers. It also reversed our prior holding 5 that Section 226’s application violated the dormant commerce clause. See Ward v. United 6 Airlines, Inc., 986 F.3d 1234, 1241 (9th Cir. 2021). 7 Our court of appeals remanded with the following instruction “to determine whether 8 United complied with § 226 and, if not, what relief should be awarded: 9 On remand, the class definitions in both cases will need to be 10 modified to take account of the California Supreme Court's 11 intervening decision in Ward. Under the Ward test, United's pilots and flight attendants are entitled to the protections of § 226 if their 12 “designated home-base airport” is in California and if they do not work more than half the time in another State. . . . We remand for 13 the district courts in both cases to modify the class definitions so that they conform to the California Supreme Court's definition of § 226’s 14 reach. 15 16 Id. at 1245. Additionally, our court of appeals instructed that we “modify the class period to 17 extend to the date of judgment.” Ibid. 18 Consistent with our court of appeals’ mandate, this order now defines the 19 class as: 20 All pilots employed by United Airlines, Inc., at any time between April 3, 2014, up to the time of the final judgment (the Covered 21 Time Period), who have or had a designated home-base airport in California at any time during the Covered Time Period, and who, at 22 any time during the Covered Time Period, either worked the 23 majority of their time in California or did not work the majority of their time in any one state. 24 25 We also note that both our court of appeals and the California Supreme Court observed that all 26 members of the previously-certified class would likely benefit from Section 226. The 27 California Supreme Court held, “Here, the relevant time frame is a pay period, and in every 1 time in any single state.” Ward, 9 Cal.5th at n. 8. Additionally, “plaintiffs here appear to have 2 a base of operations in a state where they perform some of their work...” /d. atn. 9. Our 3 court of appeals took supplemental briefing and determined: “The parties in both cases agree 4 that most of the class members satisfy the Ward test, as they do not perform a majority of their 5 work in any one State and they have their ‘base of work operations’ in California.” Ward v. 6 United Airlines, Inc., 986 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2021). 7 In light of the foregoing, the Court doubts that United could find anyone who falls 8 outside the modified class definition. United fails to name even a single example. If a motion 9 to decertify the class is filed, this order requires that United name each and every employee 10 that it believes to fall outside the above class definition and to list the data that support the 11 employee’s outlier status (e.g., John Doe: base of operations in California but 52% of hours 12 worked in Nevada,” or “Jane Doe: base of operations in Oregon’’). 5 13 Counsel for both sides shall please file a joint, stipulated brief of no more than two pages 14 advising about next steps regarding class notice no later than MONDAY, AUGUST 2ND AT 3 15 NOON. 16

= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: July 29. 2021. LAC Pee 21 = WILLIAM ALSUP 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28