A ruling from a federal court in Fresno, California permitted a former AT&T Mobility Service LLC employee’s wage claims to proceed in their entirety. The 2019 putative class action against the mobile carrier contends that the company failed to pay retail store employees due wages and meal and rest period wages at the appropriate rate. The court’s ruling comes after the plaintiff moved to compel discovery and for sanctions against AT&T for allegedly stonewalling its class certification discovery efforts.
In last Friday’s dismissal decision, the court apologized to the parties for the delay in issuing its opinion, citing a well-publicized lack of judicial resources and a backlog of cases in the district. Substantively, Judge Dale A. Drozd denied the motion to dismiss as to the pay wage claims because the plaintiff offered evidence that, among other arguments, the defendant refuted with its “counsel’s own factual assertions and interpretations of the wage statements that are unsupported by any evidence, let alone evidence that can be considered by the court at this stage of the case.”
The plaintiff also alleged that AT&T’s failure to list all hours worked on wage statements resulted in underpayment. Judge Drozd opined that the proffered statements included numerous line items that did not necessarily reflect the total hours worked. “Although the court could make educated guesses as to why certain line items are or are not included in the total hours worked, nothing before the court clearly explains the nature of each category,” the opinion said. Again, the court noted that it was prohibited from considering the explanations and arguments of AT&T’s counsel on the matter.
Next, Judge Drozd ruled that the plaintiff’s meal period premium underpayment claim passed muster due to a July 2021 California Supreme Court ruling. The decision overturned previously standing precedent, which AT&T erroneously relied upon. The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion found that “meal and rest break premiums must be calculated at the same ‘regular rate of pay’ used to calculate overtime pay, a calculation that encompasses all nondiscretionary payments, not just hourly wages.”
The employee was granted leave to file an amended complaint to address the issue of a prayer for damages in connection with his wage statement claim. The plaintiff and putative class are represented by Bradley/Grombacher LLP and Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II, and AT&T by Paul Hastings LLP.
