Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 7, 2017

Tiffany Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Xerox Business Services, LLC; Livebridge Inc., an Oregon Corporation; Affiliated Computer Services Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Affiliated Computer Services LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants.

         D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00717-JCC

          Todd L. Nunn and Patrick M. Madden, K&L Gates LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Defendants-Appellants.

          Marc C. Cote and Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC, Seattle, Washington; Jon W. MacLeod, MacLeod LLC, Seattle, Washington; Daniel F. Johnson, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Before: Richard A. Paez and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and Morrison C. England, [*] District Judge.

         SUMMARY[**]

         CERTIFICATION TO WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT

         The panel certified to the Washington Supreme Court the following question:

Whether an employer's compensation plan, which includes as a metric an employee's "production minutes, " qualifies as a piecework plan under Wash. Admin. Code § 296-126-021?

          ORDER

          Sidney R. Thomas Chief Judge.

         This case arises from a dispute between Tiffany Hill ("Hill") and Xerox Business Services, LLC and its predecessor companies (collectively, "Xerox"), over the method by which Xerox calculated wages owed to Hill and others similarly situated. Hill brought a statewide class action lawsuit against Xerox for unpaid wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("MWA"), Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46 et seq., and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86 et seq. This interlocutory appeal involves only Hill's claims under the MWA.

         Under Washington law, when an employee is paid on a piecework basis, as opposed to an hourly basis, it is permissible for an employer to determine whether the employee's compensation complies with the MWA on the basis of a work-week period. See Wash. Admin. Code § 296-126-021; Dept. of Labor and Indus. Admin. Policy ES.A.3. In other words, as long as the total wages paid for a given week, divided by the total hours worked that week, averages to at least the applicable minimum wage, an employee's compensation complies with Washington law. On the other hand, if an employee is an hourly employee, he "retain[s] a per-hour right to minimum wage under Washington law, " and weekly averaging is not permitted. Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894, 912 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.020.

         The parties do not dispute the applicability of Washington's framework for determining whether an employer's compensation plan complies with Washington's minimum wage law. Rather, they dispute whether Hill was an hourly employee or a piecework employee.[1] Hill claims that she was an hourly employee and therefore Xerox violated the MWA by determining her hourly wage based on a work-week, as opposed to a per-hour, calculation. Xerox, in contrast, contends that Hill was a piecework employee and therefore its work-week calculations were sanctioned by Washington Administration Code Section 296-126-021. In the district court, Xerox moved for partial summary judgment on this issue, which the district court denied, stating that Xerox was not paying its employees on a piecework basis, and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate. After denying a motion to reconsider, the district court certified Xerox's request for an immediate interlocutory appeal of its denial of partial summary judgment. We granted Xerox's request, and this appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

         This order certifies to the Washington Supreme Court the dispositive question of state law before us-namely, whether an employer's payment plan, which includes as a metric an employee's "production minutes, " qualifies as a piecework ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.