OAKLAND – Amazon was partially granted its motion to dismiss a suit over allegations it failed to pay a worker overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and sections of the California Labor Code.
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 24 ruled to grant Amazon.com LLC's motion to dismiss Michael Ortiz's FLSA claims but denied to dismiss the plaintiff's state law claims.
Ortiz sued Amazon.com LLC and Golden State FC LLC on behalf of himself and a putative class. He alleged Amazon incorrectly labeled him an exempt employee via federal and state law and this alleged error caused the defendants to not pay him overtime in violation of the FLSA and the California Labor Code.
Northern California U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White
Ortiz, who was employed as a manager in 2016, also alleged the defendants didn’t properly offer rest and meal breaks, failed to offer itemized wage statements and didn’t pay wages on time – all violations of the Labor Code. Ortiz also alleged the defendants violated state’s Unfair Competition Law.
White said that while Ortiz failed to show any disputed issues of fact related to his managerial status, the defendants have properly proven Ortiz had a “particular weight” under the FLSA regarding the hiring, advancement or firing of other employees.
It was also the defendants’ responsibility to prove Ortiz frequently used discretion and his own judgment. Ortiz claimed that the strategies the defendants used were so tedious that it didn’t call for him to use his own judgment, but this wasn’t enough to prove there were genuine issues of material fact in the lawsuit.
“The court does not simply consider the amount of time Ortiz spent on any given task. It also looks to ‘whether the employee’s practice diverges from the employer’s realistic expectations,” White wrote.
White added that it’s easy to determine the responsibilities for shift managers aren’t the same as what Ortiz said he did.
Ultimately, White said it couldn’t determine when Ortiz did non-exempt work and work that was very similar to exempt work. Because of this, White denied both the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the motion concerning Ortiz’s state law claims for meal and rest breaks, wage statements and waiting time penalties.
White did grant the defendants’ motion for Ortiz’s overtime claims. The judge noted that Ortiz’s job description was primary managerial duties, showing that Ortiz was often the only manager on duty, meaning he didn’t have to answer to direct supervision. He was paid $68,500 a year. This was sufficient for the defendants to prove that Ortiz was primarily a manager, and Ortiz failed to provide enough information to back his FLSA claim.