Safeway Wage and Hour Cases ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/18/19
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
    CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISON FOUR
    B287103
    SAFEWAY WAGE AND HOUR                 (Los Angeles County
    CASES.                                 Super. Ct. No. BC349382
    JCCP No. 4772)
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. Affirmed.
    Arias, Sanguinetti, Wang & Torrijos, Mike Arias,
    Alfredo Torrijos and Craig Momita for Plaintiff and
    Appellant.
    Littler Mendelson, Margaret H. Gillespie, Philip L.
    Ross and J. Kevin Lilly for Defendant and Respondent.
    INTRODUCTION
    This is another in a series of cases in which former
    managers of Safeway supermarket stores sought unpaid
    overtime wages, claiming they had been misclassified as
    exempt executives under regulations applicable to the
    mercantile industry. Following trial, a jury found
    respondent Safeway, Inc. had proven that appellant William
    Cunningham had been an exempt employee (and thus was
    not entitled to overtime pay). On appeal, appellant asserts
    the trial court committed instructional error. In particular,
    he challenges an instruction based on language in this
    court’s decisions in Batze v. Safeway, Inc. (2017) 
    10 Cal.App.5th 440
     (Batze) and Heyen v. Safeway Inc. (2013)
    
    216 Cal.App.4th 795
     (Heyen), directing the jury to classify
    any given task as exempt work whenever a manager engages
    in it “because it is helpful in supervising employees in the
    store or because it contributes to the smooth functioning of
    the store . . . .” Appellant also claims the court abused its
    discretion in admitting certain expert testimony, arguing it
    was speculative.
    We clarify that a task does not become exempt merely
    because the manager undertakes it in order to contribute to
    the smooth functioning of the store. An instruction on the
    consideration of the manager’s purpose, where appropriate,
    must inform the jury of relevant limiting principles outlined
    in the applicable regulations and recognized by our prior
    decisions. However, we conclude the trial court’s instruction
    did not affect the jury’s verdict.
    2
    Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the
    admission of the contested expert testimony under the
    circumstances of this case. We therefore affirm the
    judgment.
    BACKGROUND
    A. The Parties and This Action
    Respondent operates a national chain of supermarkets.
    From March 2002 to October 2004, appellant worked at
    several of respondent’s stores, serving as a First Assistant
    Manager (FAM) for most of that time. In 2002, two former
    Safeway managers filed a putative class action on behalf of
    all Safeway store managers and assistant store managers in
    California, alleging failure to pay overtime wages, among
    other claims. The trial court denied class certification.
    (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at pp. 445-446; Heyen, supra,
    216 Cal.App.4th at p. 799.)
    Before and after the denial of class certification,
    numerous former Safeway managers, including appellant,
    filed complaints seeking unpaid wages on an individual
    basis. Appellant’s action proceeded to trial in 2017.
    B. Evidence at Trial
    Before trial, respondent conceded appellant had
    worked overtime during his employment, and the trial
    therefore focused on respondent’s affirmative defense -- that
    appellant was subject to the executive exemption and was
    not entitled to overtime wages. (See Heyen, supra, 216
    3
    Cal.App.4th at p. 817 [“Exemptions are narrowly construed
    and, as affirmative defenses, must be proved by the
    employer”].) Because respondent bore the burden to prove
    this affirmative defense, the parties agreed respondent
    would present its case first, followed by appellant. At trial,
    the main dispute was whether appellant had spent most of
    his work time stocking shelves and checking (nonexempt
    work) as he claimed, or performing managerial tasks such as
    supervising, training, and disciplining employees, assessing
    store conditions, and filling out financial reports (exempt
    work), as respondent contended.
    1. Respondent’s Evidence
    i. Lay Testimony
    George Arias, a retired Safeway District Manager who
    had overseen stores at which appellant worked, testified
    about the duties of FAMs. According to Arias, when the
    store manager was present, a FAM’s primary responsibilities
    were to ensure checkers’ productivity and service, sufficient
    stocking of products on the shelves, store cleanliness, and
    proper organization of stock in the back room of the store.
    FAMs were to direct subordinate hourly employees in
    carrying out these tasks, not to perform them on their own.
    Safeway stores could have as many as 145 employees, and
    FAMs would not be able to manage store activities if they
    were preoccupied with physical functions like checking or
    stocking. As part of their duties, FAMs walked the aisles of
    their stores to assess store conditions and respond to any
    4
    issues (performing a “store walk”), trained subordinates,
    scheduled shifts based on sales projections, and filled out
    financial reports.
    When the store manager was not present, a FAM was
    responsible for the entire operation of the store. Based on
    his observations of appellant, Arias did not think appellant
    spent more than half his time engaged in physical labor.
    During his testimony, Arias recounted transferring
    appellant to a particular store to help prepare the store’s
    back room for a “show-and-tell,” a production of a model
    store demonstrating how a Safeway store should operate.
    Corrine Fernando, who had worked alongside
    appellant as a bakery manager at one store, testified she had
    never seen appellant stock shelves, though she
    acknowledged her view of the store was obstructed. She
    explained that her department was responsible for stocking
    the bread aisle, and that hourly employees were specifically
    assigned to stock that aisle. According to Fernando,
    appellant would usually be found in the office. Amanda
    Deschner, who had worked with appellant as a night crew
    head clerk at another store, described receiving product
    orders from appellant. She recounted an instance in which
    she disagreed with one of appellant’s order requests and
    discussed it with the store manager, only to be told, “if
    [appellant] asked you to do it, you do what he says.”
    Deschner testified she had never seen appellant stock
    shelves, though she acknowledged occasionally seeing him
    checking. Finally, Jennifer Hansen, another night crew
    5
    head clerk who had worked with appellant, testified she did
    not recall ever seeing appellant stock shelves or check out
    customers.
    ii. Banks’s Expert Testimony
    Christina Banks, an industrial organizational
    psychologist, testified about the results of an observational
    study she had conducted at Safeway stores. She designed
    this observational study to measure how a representative
    sample of Safeway FAMs performed the job. During the
    study, observers followed 28 randomly selected FAMs and
    recorded the time they spent on every activity. The study
    was conducted after appellant’s employment with
    respondent had ended and did not include any of the stores
    at which he had worked.1
    The study showed the observed FAMs spent an average
    of 72.7 percent of their worktime on “managerial” activities,
    such as overseeing customer service, and only 27.3 percent of
    their time on “non-managerial” activities, such as stocking
    shelves. Only three of the 28 observed FAMs failed to spend
    more than half their worktime doing managerial work.2
    1     Prior to trial, appellant sought to exclude Banks’s testimony
    because it did not constitute evidence of how he had spent his
    worktime at respondent’s stores. The trial court denied this request.
    2     A report documenting the measurements and findings of the
    study was admitted into evidence. The report also included
    measurements and calculations accounting for time spent thinking
    “managerial thoughts” while engaged in different tasks, but Banks
    indicated she did not rely on that data in offering her opinions.
    6
    Based on these results, Banks opined the vast majority of
    FAMs spent more than half their time performing
    managerial work, and that it was realistic for respondent to
    expect its FAMs to do so.
    On cross-examination, when asked if her study was
    representative of how appellant spent his worktime, Banks
    explained the study was “representative of what [FAMs] do”
    but she could not “speak to what [appellant] did in his job.”
    She later confirmed on redirect that she was not attempting
    to “predict . . . what [appellant] did on any particular day.”
    2. Appellant’s Evidence
    Appellant testified at trial. He described his typical
    shift as mostly physically stocking and rearranging products
    on shelves. According to appellant, at one store, he spent 60-
    70 percent of his time stocking and 20 percent checking. At
    two other stores, he spent 70-80 percent of his time stocking,
    checking, and cleaning. He testified he never managed
    anyone in the various departments of his stores. Appellant
    admitted occasionally preparing various reports, but claimed
    they took very little time to complete. On cross-examination,
    he also admitted conducting store walks and delegating
    tasks to other employees, and confirmed he was responsible
    for correcting employees’ performance deficiencies and for
    discipline.
    Albert Kruger, a former store manager who oversaw
    appellant at one store, testified appellant was a “work
    horse,” responsible for physically replenishing products.
    7
    Appellant was usually the only employee available to stock
    the shelves, and would spend 80-90 percent of his time
    stocking. He did very little office work and managed only
    himself.
    Two other current and former FAMs testified they had
    spent the majority of their time doing physical work or
    checking customers. Both were observed in Banks’s study
    and one of them, Lyle Parker, claimed he had been
    instructed to do only management work on the day of his
    observation and therefore did less checking than he normally
    did. When confronted with check-register data on cross-
    examination, however, he admitted he had spent similar
    time checking in the days surrounding the study.
    C. Jury Instructions
    Aside from standard CACI jury instructions, the trial
    court also instructed the jury that respondent bore “the
    burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
    [appellant] was an exempt employee and therefore not
    entitled to overtime compensation.” The court instructed the
    jury on the elements of the executive exemption, including
    the requirement that the employee be “primarily engaged in”
    exempt work, and reiterated that respondent had the burden
    to prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence.
    In Instruction No. 31, the court gave lists of examples of
    exempt work (e.g., “interviewing, selecting, and training of
    employees,” “directing the work of employees,” and
    “disciplining employees”) and nonexempt work (e.g.,
    8
    “stocking shelves,” “cleaning the store,” and “checking out
    customers”).
    Instruction No. 31 continued: “These examples of
    different tasks are not determinative of whether such tasks
    should be classified as exempt or non-exempt. A task may
    be exempt or non-exempt based on the reason that the
    person is doing the task. Understanding the manager’s
    purpose in engaging in such tasks, or a task’s role in the
    smooth operation of the store, is critical to the task’s proper
    categorization as exempt or non-exempt. A task performed
    because it is helpful in supervising employees in the store or
    because it contributes to the smooth functioning of the store
    or any subdivision of the store is exempt, even though the
    identical task performed by an hourly employee for a
    different, non-managerial reason would be non-exempt.
    “In making your decision, you may consider whether
    the manager is doing tasks that also are done by hourly
    employees. If the purpose of the manager in doing those
    tasks is to supervise employees and/or contribute to the
    smooth operations of the store or a recognized subdivision of
    the store, then those tasks must be classified as exempt.”
    A related instruction, Instruction No. 33, stated:
    “Identical tasks may be exempt or nonexempt based on the
    purpose they serve within the organization or department.
    Understanding the manager’s purpose in engaging in such
    tasks, or a task’s role in supervising employees in the store
    and/or contributing to the smooth operations of the store or a
    9
    recognized subdivision of the store, is critical to the task’s
    proper categorization as exempt or non-exempt.”
    The trial court took much of the language of
    Instruction Nos. 31 and 33 from our decisions in Batze,
    supra, 
    10 Cal.App.5th 440
     and Heyen, supra, 
    216 Cal.App.4th 795
    . Appellant objected to the language dealing
    with the manager’s purpose in undertaking the task,
    arguing this assessment applies only to tasks that are not
    also done by the manager’s subordinates. He argued that
    ignoring this limitation would mean any task would be
    exempt. The trial court overruled his objection, concluding
    the instruction was supported by our precedents.3
    The court also refused to give several instructions
    appellant requested, including ones involving: (1) the
    elements of the exemption and a rebuttable presumption
    that any given task is nonexempt; (2) a list of categorically
    nonexempt tasks, which included stocking shelves and
    manning a cash register; and (3) advisements that an
    employee cannot engage in exempt work while at the same
    time doing other work, and that time spent “thinking
    managerial thoughts” while performing nonexempt tasks
    must be classified as nonexempt.
    3     Although respondent asserts that appellant later acquiesced in
    Instruction Nos. 31 and 33, our review of the record satisfies us that
    appellant has preserved his objection to those instructions.
    10
    D. Closing Arguments
    In closing, respondent’s counsel highlighted the various
    managerial responsibilities entrusted to appellant as a FAM
    according to Arias’s testimony, and argued that with all
    appellant’s managerial assignments, he could not have
    stocked or done other physical work for substantial portions
    of his time. Counsel also directed the jury to the testimony
    of appellant’s coworkers who had not seen him stock shelves.
    Turning to appellant’s store walks, respondent’s
    counsel contended this work was “the essential task of
    managing” and argued that although a FAM might
    occasionally move product on a shelf, the primary purpose of
    store walks was to assess store conditions. Counsel then
    cited the court’s instruction that identical tasks may be
    exempt or nonexempt depending on their purpose.
    As to Banks’s observational study, respondent’s
    counsel emphasized the relevance of the study to
    respondent’s expectations: “Remember we concede that
    [appellant] isn’t on that study. . . . But is it not realistic, if
    the company goes out and has a study done . . . and it shows
    that 28 managers were . . . doing their job that way, is it not
    realistic to expect that’s how they manage stores?” In his
    rebuttal, counsel brought up appellant’s work preparing a
    back room for the show-and-tell, and argued this task too
    was exempt, because it was done for training or
    demonstration purposes.
    Appellant’s counsel, on the other hand, pointed to
    testimony that appellant had spent most of his time
    11
    stocking, and argued he was merely “a filler.” Attacking the
    observational study, counsel argued it was unreliable and
    emphasized it said nothing about appellant’s work.
    E. Verdict and Judgment
    After less than two hours of deliberations, the jury
    returned a special verdict finding, by a vote of 10-2, that
    respondent had proven appellant had been an exempt
    employee. The trial court subsequently entered judgment
    for respondent. Appellant timely appealed, challenging the
    trial court’s jury instructions and its admission of Banks’s
    testimony.
    DISCUSSION
    A. Jury Instructions
    1. Governing Legal Principles
    i. The Labor Code and the IWC’s Wage
    Orders
    “California’s Labor Code mandates overtime pay for
    employees who work more than 40 hours in a given work
    week. (Labor Code, § 510, subd. (a).) However, the
    Legislature authorized the Industrial Welfare Commission
    (IWC) to establish exemptions for various categories of
    employees, including ‘executive . . . employees,’ where the
    employee is ‘primarily engaged in the duties that meet the
    test of the exemption,’ the employee ‘customarily and
    regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in
    performing those duties,’ and the employee ‘earns a monthly
    12
    salary equivalent to no less than two times the state
    minimum wage for full-time employment.’ (Lab. Code, § 515,
    subd. (a).)” (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 471, fn.
    omitted.)
    Utilizing its statutory authority, the IWC promulgated
    several Wage Orders, codified in the California Code of
    Regulations, setting forth criteria for determining whether
    an employee may be classified as an exempt executive.4 (See
    Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010 et seq.) As relevant here,
    Wage Order No. 7-2001 governs employees of the
    “mercantile industry.”5 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070
    (Wage Order).) To be an exempt executive under this Wage
    Order, an employee must, inter alia, be “primarily engaged
    in duties which meet the test of the exemption.” (Id.,
    § 11070, subd. (1)(A)(1)(e).) “The [W]age [O]rder defines
    ‘primarily’ as ‘more than one-half the employee’s work time,’”
    and instructs the trier of fact to “look not only to the ‘work
    actually performed by the employee during the workweek,’
    but also to the ‘employer’s realistic expectations and the
    realistic requirements of the job.’” (Heyen, supra, 216
    Cal.App.4th at pp. 819, 828, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
    § 11070, subds. (1)(A)(1)(e), 2(K).) As to the nature of work,
    the Wage Order provides that exempt work and nonexempt
    4      The IWC was defunded in 2004, but its wage orders remain in
    effect. (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 471.)
    5     There is no dispute that respondent is in the mercantile
    industry.
    13
    work “shall be construed in the same manner as such items
    are construed in the following regulations under the Fair
    Labor Standards Act effective as of the date of this order
    [2001]: 29 C.F.R. Sections 541.102, 541.104-111, and
    541.115-116.”6
    ii. The Federal Regulations
    According to the 2001 version of the federal
    regulations, determining whether a particular kind of work
    is exempt or nonexempt should usually be an easy task. “In
    the vast majority of cases[,] the bona fide executive employee
    performs managerial and supervisory functions which are
    easily recognized as within the scope of the exemption.”
    (§ 541.102(a).) Such functions include: “[i]nterviewing,
    selecting, and training of employees; setting and adjusting
    their rates of pay and hours of work; directing their work;
    maintaining their production or sales records for use in
    supervision or control; appraising their productivity and
    efficiency for the purpose of recommending promotions or
    other changes in their status; handling their complaints and
    grievances and disciplining them when necessary; planning
    the work; determining the techniques to be used;
    apportioning the work among the workers; determining the
    type of materials, supplies, machinery or tools to be used or
    merchandise to be bought, stocked and sold; controlling the
    6      Undesignated section references are to the 2001 version of title
    29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    14
    flow and distribution of materials or merchandise and
    supplies; providing for the safety of the men and the
    property.” (§ 541.102(b).)
    But the federal regulations also recognize a category of
    exempt tasks that may not be so easily identifiable as
    exempt -- work “directly and closely related” to the
    management of a department and the supervision of
    employees. (§ 541.108.) “This phrase [work directly and
    closely related] brings within the category of exempt work
    not only the actual management of the department and the
    supervision of the employees therein, but also activities
    which are closely associated with the performance of the
    duties involved in such managerial and supervisory
    functions or responsibilities.” (§ 541.108(a).) The
    regulations explain: “The supervision of employees and the
    management of a department include a great many directly
    and closely related tasks which are different from the work
    performed by subordinates and are commonly performed by
    supervisors because they are helpful in supervising the
    employees or contribute to the smooth functioning of the
    department for which they are responsible. Frequently such
    exempt work is of a kind which in establishments that are
    organized differently or which are larger and have greater
    specialization of function, may be performed by a nonexempt
    employee hired especially for that purpose.” (Ibid.)
    Section 541.108 provides several examples of tasks
    that, depending on the circumstances, may be “directly and
    closely related” to exempt work:
    15
    “(b) Keeping basic records of working time . . . is
    frequently performed by a timekeeper employed for that
    purpose. In such cases the work is clearly not exempt in
    nature. In other establishments which are not large enough
    to employ a timekeeper, or in which the timekeeping
    function has been decentralized, the supervisor of each
    department keeps the basic time records of his own
    subordinates. In these instances, . . . the timekeeping is
    directly related to the function of managing the particular
    department and supervising its employees. . . .
    “(c) Another example of work which may be directly
    and closely related to the performance of management duties
    is the distribution of materials or merchandise and supplies.
    . . . In [some] establishments it is not uncommon to leave
    the actual distribution of materials and supplies in the
    hands of the supervisor. In such cases it is exempt work
    since it is directly and closely related to the managerial
    responsibility of maintaining the flow of materials. In a
    large retail establishment, however, where the replenishing
    of stocks of merchandise on the sales floor is customarily
    assigned to a nonexempt employee, the performance of such
    work by the manager or buyer of the department is
    nonexempt. . . .
    “[¶] . . . [¶]
    “(e) . . . a department manager or buyer in a retail or
    service establishment who goes about the sales floor
    observing the work of sales personnel under his supervision
    to determine the effectiveness of their sales techniques,
    16
    checking on the quality of customer service being given, or
    observing customer preferences and reactions to the . . .
    merchandise offered, is performing work which is directly
    and closely related to his managerial and supervisory
    functions. His actual participation, except for supervisory
    training or demonstration purposes, in such activities as
    making sales to customers, replenishing stocks of
    merchandise on the sales floor, removing merchandise from
    fitting rooms and returning to stock or shelves, however, is
    not. . . .”
    Section 541.108(g) cautions that when dealing with the
    kinds of work described in this section -- work that is not
    inherently managerial or supervisory -- it is frequently
    difficult to distinguish “managerial type” tasks from
    “production operation[s].” It provides that “if work of this
    kind takes up a large part of the employee’s time it would be
    evidence that . . . such work is a production operation rather
    than a function directly and closely related to the
    supervisory or managerial duties . . . .” (§ 541.108(g).)
    As for nonexempt work, the regulations define it to
    include all work other than management and supervision,
    and directly and closely related work. (§ 541.111(a).)
    Section 541.111 explains: “Nonexempt work is easily
    identifiable where, as in the usual case, it consists of work of
    the same nature as that performed by the nonexempt
    subordinates of the ‘executive.’ It is more difficult to identify
    in cases where supervisory employees spend a significant
    amount of time in activities not performed by any of their
    17
    subordinates and not consisting of actual supervision and
    management. In such cases[,] careful analysis of the
    employee’s duties with reference to the phrase ‘directly and
    closely related . . .’ will usually be necessary in arriving at a
    determination.” (§ 541.111(b).)
    iii. Batze v. Safeway and Heyen v.
    Safeway
    This court has examined the exemption standards of
    the federal regulations in two prior cases in the string of
    Safeway overtime-wage cases, Batze and Heyen. Both cases
    involved Safeway assistant managers who claimed they had
    spent more than 50 percent of their time doing nonexempt
    work and were therefore nonexempt employees entitled to
    overtime pay.
    In Heyen, the trial court, aided by an advisory jury,
    found for the plaintiff. (Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at
    pp. 798-799.) On appeal, Safeway contended the trial court
    failed to account for time the plaintiff had spent multi-
    tasking -- simultaneously performing exempt and nonexempt
    work -- and that all such time should be classified as exempt.
    (Id. at p. 799.) We rejected these contentions, explaining
    that “the regulations do not recognize ‘hybrid’ activities.”
    (Id. at p. 822.) We held that the trier of fact must separately
    classify each task as either exempt or nonexempt (ibid.), and
    where employees engage in concurrent performance of
    exempt and nonexempt work, categorization of that time will
    depend on their purpose in undertaking the activity (id. at
    18
    pp. 825-826 [approving instruction that jury must categorize
    time spent on concurrent performance of exempt and
    nonexempt work according to employee’s purpose]). In so
    doing, we reviewed and discussed the standards set forth in
    the federal regulations, and identified several general
    principles. (Id. at pp. 819-821.)
    Among other observations regarding the “work directly
    and closely related” category, we stated: “identical tasks
    may be ‘exempt’ or ‘nonexempt’ based on the purpose they
    serve within the organization or department. Understand-
    ing the manager’s purpose in engaging in such tasks, or a
    task’s role in the work of the organization, is critical to the
    task’s proper categorization. A task performed because it is
    ‘helpful in supervising the employees or contribute[s] to the
    smooth functioning of the department’ is exempt, even
    though the identical task performed for a different,
    nonmanagerial reason would be nonexempt. (§ 541.108(a).)”
    (Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 822.)
    However, we also recognized that “work of the same
    kind performed by a supervisor’s nonexempt employees
    generally is ‘nonexempt,’ even when that work is performed
    by the supervisor” and that “[i]f such work takes up a large
    part of a supervisor’s time, the supervisor likely is a
    ‘nonexempt’ employee. (§§ 541.108(g), 541.111(b),
    541.115(b).)” (Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 822.) And
    we proceeded to highlight section 541.108’s teaching that in
    a large retail setting, tasks such as restocking or making
    sales to customers are nonexempt unless done for training or
    19
    demonstration purposes. (Heyen, supra, at pp. 821, 822-823,
    citing § 541.108(c) & (e).)
    Applying these principles to Safeway’s argument, we
    concluded: “the regulations look to the supervisor’s reason
    or purpose for undertaking the task[:] If a task is performed
    because it is ‘helpful in supervising the employees or
    contribute[s] to the smooth functioning of the department for
    which [the supervisors] are responsible’ (§ 541.108(a), (c)),
    the work is exempt; if not, it is nonexempt.” (Heyen, supra,
    216 Cal.App.4th at p. 826, italics omitted.)
    We reviewed these principles again in Batze. There,
    the trial court ruled largely in Safeway’s favor following a
    bench trial, finding that the plaintiffs, former Safeway First
    and Second Assistant Managers, had engaged in exempt
    managerial work for more than 50 percent of their time.
    (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 444.) On appeal, we
    affirmed, rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the sufficiency
    of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings. (Id. at
    p. 445.) In doing so, we repeated Heyen’s statements that
    “‘[i]dentical tasks may be “exempt” or “nonexempt” based on
    the purpose they serve,’” that “‘[u]nderstanding the
    manager’s purpose . . . or a task’s role in the work of the
    organization, is critical to the task’s proper categorization,’”
    and that “‘[a] task performed because it is “helpful in
    supervising the employees or contribute[s] to the smooth
    functioning of the department” is exempt, even though the
    identical task performed for a different, nonmanagerial
    reason would be “nonexempt.” [Citation.]’” (Batze, supra, at
    20
    p. 474, quoting Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 822-
    823.) But we also noted the regulations’ admonishment,
    recognized in Heyen, that in large retail settings, restocking
    or making sales to customers is nonexempt unless done for
    training or demonstration purposes. (Batze, at p. 473,
    quoting Heyen, at pp. 820-821.)
    Based on these principles, we rejected the plaintiffs’
    contention that the trial court had erred in classifying
    certain tasks as exempt. (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at
    pp. 480-481.) As relevant here, the plaintiffs contested the
    categorization of the following tasks: (1) scanning “out-of-
    stocks,” which involved “walk[ing] the aisles to see whether
    the store was low on any product” and “scan[ning] bar codes
    to trigger the warehouse to send more product” (id. at
    pp. 447, 480); and (2) managing the “front-end,” which the
    plaintiffs alleged consisted mostly of “checking, bagging and
    performing other routine services for customers” (id. at
    p. 481).
    As for scanning out-of-stocks, we acknowledged this
    task could be done by hourly employees. (Batze, supra, 10
    Cal.App.5th at p. 480.) However, citing the “work directly
    and closely related” category and Heyen’s discussion of the
    need to examine a task’s purpose, we concluded the trial
    court was entitled to find that “[w]hen performed
    occasionally by an [assistant manager], . . . scanning out-of-
    stocks was exempt because it assisted the [assistant
    manager] to fulfill his or her managerial responsibility for
    determining when and where out-of-stocks occur and
    21
    minimizing them.” (Batze, supra, at pp. 480-481, citing
    Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 822.) In other words,
    while both managers and their subordinates could engage in
    the seemingly identical work of scanning out-of-stocks, the
    managers’ periodic performance of this task served a
    different function that was “directly and closely related” to
    the management and supervision of their stores. (See ibid.)
    In contrast, in rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that
    time they had spent at the front-end should have been
    classified as nonexempt, we concluded the evidence showed
    assistant managers “were put at the front to improve
    customer service by observing the checkers . . . to determine
    whether they were working efficiently and providing
    satisfactory customer service”; they were “to observe and
    manage, not to check.” (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at
    p. 481.) With these principles in mind, we consider
    appellant’s claims of instructional error.
    2. Analysis
    Appellant challenges the trial court’s jury instructions
    about the categorization of appellant’s work, complaining
    about both instructions the court gave and instructions he
    claims the court refused to give. We review claims of
    instructional error de novo. (Sander/Moses Productions,
    Inc. v. NBC Studios, Inc. (2006) 
    142 Cal.App.4th 1086
    ,
    1094.) “‘In considering a claim of instructional error we
    must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and
    then determine what meaning the instruction given
    22
    conveys.’” (Bay Guardian Co. v. New Times Media LLC
    (2010) 
    187 Cal.App.4th 438
    , 462.) “‘‘‘[T]he correctness of jury
    instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the
    court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or
    from a particular instruction.”’” (Ibid.) Even when an
    instruction, or the failure to give an instruction, was
    erroneous, we generally will not reverse the judgment unless
    there is a reasonable probability the appealing party would
    have obtained a better result absent the error.
    (Baumgardner v. Yusuf (2006) 
    144 Cal.App.4th 1381
    , 1388
    (Baumgardner).)
    i. The Trial Court’s Purpose
    Instructions
    Appellant challenges the trial court’s jury instructions
    on the “work directly and closely related” category, which
    directed the jury to consider his purpose in performing any
    given task. He argues it was error to instruct the jury in
    Instruction No. 31 that “[a] task performed because it is
    helpful in supervising employees in the store or because it
    contributes to the smooth functioning of the store or any
    subdivision of the store is exempt . . . .” He also contests
    similar language in Instruction No. 33, which stated that
    “[u]nderstanding the manager’s purpose . . . or a task’s role
    in supervising employees in the store and/or contributing to
    the smooth operations of the store . . . is critical to the task’s
    proper categorization . . . .” He claims this language in the
    23
    instructions conflicted with the regulations and erased any
    distinction between exempt and nonexempt tasks.
    As noted, the trial court took the contested language
    from our opinions in Batze and Heyen. The court
    commendably sought to instruct the jury in accordance with
    the appellate courts’ most recent pronouncements on the
    exemption’s controlling standards. However, without the
    surrounding context of the regulations and the governing
    principles we acknowledged in Heyen and Batze, the
    language of the instructions may be confusing to a jury.
    Initially, it is important to recognize the proper role of
    the purpose inquiry. The consideration of a manager’s
    purpose in performing a particular task is intended to
    capture the narrow category of work that is not inherently
    managerial but is “directly and closely related” to
    management and the supervision of employees.
    (§ 541.108(a).) Under Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at
    pages 825-826, this category may also include certain time
    spent concurrently performing exempt and nonexempt work.
    As the regulations acknowledge, both exempt and
    nonexempt work generally may be easily identified without
    resort to the “work directly and closely related” category.
    (See § 541.102(a) [“In the vast majority of cases[,] the bona
    fide executive employee performs managerial and
    supervisory functions which are easily recognized as within
    the scope of the exemption”]; § 541.111(b) [“Nonexempt work
    is easily identifiable where, as in the usual case, it consists
    of work of the same nature as that performed by the
    24
    nonexempt subordinates of the ‘executive’”].) This category
    is irrelevant, and the purpose inquiry of no utility, in a
    factual dispute regarding the activities in which the
    manager engaged. Thus, a trial court need not instruct the
    jury to consider the manager’s purpose unless the employer’s
    defense theory invokes the “work directly and closely
    related” category and substantial evidence supports its
    application. (See Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified School
    District (2003) 
    110 Cal.App.4th 292
    , 303 [“An instruction
    correct in the abstract, may not be given where it is not
    supported by the evidence”]; Harris v. Oaks Shopping Center
    (1999) 
    70 Cal.App.4th 206
    , 209 [“Irrelevant . . . instructions
    need not be given”].)
    When an instruction on the “work directly and closely
    related” category is appropriate, the court should not
    instruct that any task is exempt if the manager undertakes
    it because it “contributes to the smooth functioning” of the
    store. A manager arguably intends to facilitate the smooth
    functioning of the store in performing any task otherwise
    done by hourly employees, be it mopping floors or returning
    shopping carts. Neither the regulations nor our precedents
    construing them hold that a factfinder may find any such
    task exempt simply because it aids the store’s operations.
    Under the regulations, “work of the same kind
    performed by a supervisor’s nonexempt employees generally
    is ‘nonexempt,’ even when that work is performed by the
    supervisor.” (Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 822.) For
    work to be “directly and closely related” to managerial work,
    25
    it must be “different from the work performed by
    subordinates” (§ 541.108(a)); while it may be seemingly
    identical to tasks performed by the manager’s subordinates,
    it must serve a different function, directly and closely related
    to the management and supervision of the store (see Batze,
    supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 480). In a large retail setting,
    tasks such as stocking shelves or making sales to customers
    will not be included in this category unless done for training
    or demonstration purposes. (See Heyen, supra, at pp. 821,
    822-823, quoting § 541.108(c) & (e); Batze, supra, at p. 473.)
    And if work that is not inherently managerial “takes up a
    large part of the employee’s time,” it is evidence that this
    work “is a production operation rather than a function
    directly and closely related to the supervisory or managerial
    duties . . . .” (§ 541.108(g); accord, Heyen, at p. 822.)
    Trial courts instructing on the “work directly and
    closely related” category should moor it to its intended scope
    under the regulations by including these limiting principles,
    as relevant. Without these applicable principles, the
    description of the “work directly and closely related”
    category in Instructions Nos. 31 and 33 may be overbroad.7
    7      Relying on section 541.108(b)’s discussion of the timekeeping
    example, appellant claims that the “work directly and closely related”
    category includes only certain tasks performed in “unusual
    circumstance[s] or [in] smaller or differently configured organizations,”
    and is not applicable to Safeway’s retail operations. While some
    examples of work in this category may be more typical in certain
    settings, section 541.108 does not limit the category to any particular
    setting. Indeed, our decision in Batze establishes this category could
    (Fn. is continued on the next page.)
    26
    In this case, however, we perceive no potential
    prejudice from the instruction. “In assessing prejudice from
    an erroneous instruction, we consider, insofar as relevant,
    ‘(1) the degree of conflict in the evidence on critical issues
    . . . ; (2) whether respondent’s argument to the jury may
    have contributed to the instruction’s misleading effect . . . ;
    (3) whether the jury requested a rereading of the erroneous
    instruction . . . or of related evidence . . . ; (4) the closeness of
    the jury’s verdict . . . ; and (5) the effect of other instructions
    in remedying the error . . . .” (Soule v. General Motors Corp.
    (1994) 
    8 Cal.4th 548
    , 570-571 (Soule).)
    The principal dispute at trial concerned how appellant
    spent the majority of his time, not the proper categorization
    of the tasks he performed. Appellant presented testimony
    that he was essentially a glorified stocker, spending most of
    his time stocking shelves, with no suggestion that he had
    any managerial purpose in doing so. Respondent, on the
    other hand, presented testimony that appellant spent the
    bulk of his time doing inherently managerial work, which
    was undisputedly exempt: supervising, training, and
    disciplining employees, preparing schedules using projected
    sales, monitoring store conditions, responding to problems,
    and filling out financial reports.
    apply in standard large-retail operations. (See, Batze, supra, 10
    Cal.App.5th at p. 480 [trial court permissibly found scanning out-of-
    stocks at Safeway stores was directly and closely related to exempt
    work].)
    27
    Respondent’s closing argument similarly focused on
    undisputedly exempt work. Counsel argued that with all of
    appellant’s inherently managerial responsibilities, he would
    not have had time to stock or do other menial work all day,
    as he claimed. At no point did respondent’s counsel suggest
    stocking was exempt work. Moreover, counsel made only
    two brief references to the regulations’ purpose inquiry. In
    discussing appellant’s store walks, counsel contended this
    work was “the essential task of managing,” claiming that
    although it might involve moving product on the shelf, the
    task’s purpose was to assess store conditions. In so arguing,
    counsel referenced the instruction that identical tasks may
    be exempt or nonexempt depending on their purpose. In his
    rebuttal, counsel referenced the purpose inquiry a second
    time in asserting that appellant’s work preparing a back
    room for the show-and-tell was exempt because he
    performed it for training or demonstration purposes. Both
    these references were unobjectionable, and at no point did
    counsel argue these tasks were exempt merely because they
    contributed to the smooth functioning of the store.
    Appellant’s counsel, in contrast, urged the jury to find
    credible the testimony of appellant and his witnesses that he
    spent more than 50 percent of his time stocking. The jury
    was thus presented with two starkly contrasting factual
    scenarios -- one in which appellant primarily managed and
    supervised, and the other in which he stocked shelves and
    checked out customers.
    28
    The jury sent no questions regarding the jury
    instructions and deliberated less than two hours before
    returning a verdict, indicating its members had little trouble
    reaching their respective conclusions in what was largely a
    credibility contest. While the verdict was non-unanimous,
    the record suggests the disagreement revolved around the
    parties’ factual claims, with 10 jurors accepting respondent’s
    account, and two accepting appellant’s.
    Appellant emphasizes the trial court’s instructions
    twice referenced the broad language about a task’s
    helpfulness in supervising employees or its contribution to
    the smooth functioning of the store. But absent a relevant
    body of evidence or related argument by counsel, the jury
    had no meaningful opportunity to apply this language in an
    objectionable way. Given that the challenged instructions
    were largely irrelevant to the disputed issues at trial, that
    respondent’s argument did not focus on it, and that the jury
    reached its verdict with relative ease, we find no reasonable
    probability that appellant would have obtained a more
    favorable result without the contested language in the
    instructions. (See Soule, 
    supra,
     8 Cal.4th at pp. 570-571;
    Baumgardner, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388.)
    ii. Claims of Refused Instructions
    Appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to
    instruct the jury on three principles identified in Heyen
    supra, 
    216 Cal.App.4th 795
    : (1) that “work of the same kind
    performed by a supervisor’s non-exempt employees generally
    29
    is ‘nonexempt,’ even when that work is performed by the
    supervisor” (id. at p. 822); (2) that in a large retail setting,
    tasks such as restocking or making sales to customers are
    nonexempt unless done for training or demonstration
    purposes (id. at pp. 821, 822-823); and (3) that “the
    regulations do not recognize ‘hybrid’ activities,” but rather,
    that the regulations require each discrete task be separately
    classified as either exempt or nonexempt (id. at p. 822).
    As to the first two principles, we observe initially that
    appellant did not request related instructions, and he has
    therefore forfeited any contention about them. (See Hurley
    v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2018) 
    20 Cal.App.5th 634
    , 655 [party may not challenge trial court’s failure to give
    particular instruction when party did not request such
    instruction].) While he asserts the trial court refused
    relevant instructions, the proposed instructions he cites do
    not deal with these concepts, but instead involve a
    presumption of nonexemption, the elements of the
    exemption, and an admonition that time spent “thinking
    managerial thoughts” while performing nonexempt tasks
    must be classified as nonexempt.8 Moreover, while
    8     Another instruction appellant proposed, but does not cite on
    appeal, stated that various tasks, including stocking and manning a
    cash register, were nonexempt, without mentioning any possible
    exception. This requested instruction was incorrect -- as appellant
    recognizes, there are circumstances under which such work may be
    deemed exempt. Thus, the trial court properly refused to give the
    requested instruction. (See Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008)
    
    159 Cal.App.4th 655
    , 684-685 [“A court may refuse a proposed
    (Fn. is continued on the next page.)
    30
    instructions on these principles would have helped
    contextualize the trial court’s purpose instructions, their
    omission was not prejudicial for the reasons discussed above.
    As for the third principle, relating to hybrid activities,
    appellant concedes the trial court properly instructed the
    jury, in accordance with Heyen, that “each task must be
    separately classified as either exempt or non-exempt.” He
    complains, however, that the court never told the jury the
    tasks could not be performed “at the same time,” and
    suggests that concurrent performance of exempt and
    nonexempt activities must be considered nonexempt.
    Appellant cites no authority supporting such an instruction.
    To the contrary, in Heyen, this court held the factfinder must
    categorize concurrent performance of exempt and nonexempt
    work based on the manager’s purpose in undertaking the
    activity. (Heyen, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 826.) We did
    not hold that such time must always be considered
    nonexempt. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
    refusing appellant’s requested instruction.
    B. Banks’s Expert Testimony
    Appellant claims the trial court should have excluded
    Banks’s expert testimony as speculative. “Trial judges have
    a substantial gatekeeping responsibility when it comes to
    expert testimony. [Citation.] In particular, courts are to
    instruction that incorrectly states the law . . . and ordinarily has no
    duty to modify a proposed instruction”].)
    31
    ensure that opinions are not speculative, based on
    unconventional matters or grounded in unsupported
    reasoning. [Citation.] We review a court’s execution of these
    gatekeeping duties for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]”
    (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Dry Canyon
    Enterprises, LLC (2012) 
    211 Cal.App.4th 486
    , 493.)
    Appellant argues Banks’s opinion testimony was
    speculative in that she relied on an observational study of
    other FAMs, at other stores, after appellant had left
    Safeway, to “make predictions” about how he had spent his
    worktime. He asserts that no sound methodology supported
    Banks’s testimony and instead, that she merely assumed his
    typical work experience would be similar to that of FAMs
    observed in her study.
    Respondent counters, and we agree, that appellant’s
    argument is based on a false premise. Contrary to
    appellant’s claims, Banks offered no opinion on appellant’s
    actual work experience or his typical workday. Indeed,
    during her cross-examination, she stated she could not
    “speak to what [appellant] did in his job,” and on redirect
    confirmed she was not attempting to “predict . . . what
    [appellant] did on any particular day.” Instead, Banks
    opined only that respondent’s expectation that its FAMs
    would spend more than half their time on exempt work was
    realistic. As explained, Wage Order No. 7-2001, applicable
    to respondent, requires the factfinder to consider “the
    employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic
    requirements of the job” in determining whether the
    32
    employee “primarily engaged in duties which meet the test
    of the exemption.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd.
    (1)(A)(1)(e).) Banks’s testimony was clearly relevant to this
    consideration.
    Respondent’s closing argument also cited Banks’s
    study and testimony in the context of realistic expectations.
    Referencing the observational study, respondent’s counsel
    explained its import to the jury: “Remember we concede that
    [appellant] isn’t on that study. . . . But is it not realistic . . .
    to expect that’s how they manage stores?” At no time did
    counsel suggest either the observational study or Banks’s
    testimony established how appellant had actually spent his
    worktime.
    Appellant does not contend that Banks’s opinion of the
    realistic nature of respondent’s expectations was speculative.
    Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the
    contested evidence.9
    9      For the first time in his reply brief, appellant contends Banks’s
    report and testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay under People v.
    Sanchez (2016) 
    63 Cal.4th 665
    . He has forfeited any contention in this
    regard by failing to raise it in his opening brief. (See Browne v. County
    of Tehama (2013) 
    213 Cal.App.4th 704
    , 726 [failure to raise argument
    in opening brief constitutes forfeiture].)
    33
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its
    costs on appeal.
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    MANELLA, P. J.
    We concur:
    WILLHITE, J.
    COLLINS, J.
    34
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B287103

Filed Date: 12/19/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/19/2019