Andrea Hirst v. Skywest, Inc. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                 In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________________
    Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660
    ANDREA HIRST, et al.,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    SKYWEST, INC., et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ____________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    Nos. 1:15-cv-02036 & 1:15-cv-11117 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.
    ____________________
    ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED DECEMBER 12, 2018
    ____________________
    Before WOOD, Chief Judge, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit
    Judges.
    BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. In this case, a number of current
    and former flight attendants challenge an airline’s compensa-
    tion policy of paying for their work in the air but not on the
    ground. Plaintiffs-appellants (“the Flight Attendants”) all
    work or worked for defendant-appellee SkyWest Airlines,
    Inc., an airline owned by co-defendant-appellee SkyWest, Inc.
    (collectively “SkyWest”). The Flight Attendants filed suit
    2                                       Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660
    alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
    29 U.S.C. § 201
     et seq. (“FLSA”), and various state and local wage laws,
    seeking to certify a class of similarly situated SkyWest
    employees. The district court dismissed the complaint in its
    entirety, finding that the Flight Attendants had failed to allege
    a FLSA violation, and that the dormant Commerce Clause
    barred the state and local claims.
    The Flight Attendants plausibly allege they were not paid
    for certain hours of work. We agree with other federal circuits,
    however, that under the FLSA the relevant unit for determin-
    ing a pay violation is not wages per hour, but the average
    hourly wage across a workweek. Because the Flight Attend-
    ants failed to allege even a single workweek in which one of
    them received less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25
    per hour, we affirm the dismissal of those claims.
    We do not agree, though, with the application of the
    dormant Commerce Clause in this case. States possess author-
    ity to regulate the labor of their own citizens and companies,
    so we apply that doctrine sparingly to wage regulations. The
    dormant Commerce Clause does not preclude state regula-
    tion of flight attendant wages in this case, particularly when
    the FLSA itself reserves that authority to states and localities.
    Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the state and local
    wage claims and remand for further proceedings.
    I. Background
    This appeal is from a dismissal on the pleadings, so we
    recount the facts as alleged in the complaint, resolving all
    reasonable inferences in favor of the Flight Attendants. Sloan
    v. Am. Brain Tumor Ass'n, 
    901 F.3d 891
    , 893 (7th Cir. 2018).
    Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660                                                    3
    SkyWest, an airline headquartered in St. George, Utah,
    charters planes for other airlines. SkyWest employs over 2,600
    people as cabin crew, and either currently employs or for-
    merly employed the eight plaintiffs-appellants in this case. 1
    SkyWest flight attendants are based out of airports in ten dif-
    ferent states, including these Flight Attendants’ home states
    of Arizona, California, Illinois, and Washington. A new flight
    attendant at SkyWest earns $17.50 per hour, and wages
    increase with experience.
    A flight attendant’s typical workday is long and varied,
    including time onboard the aircraft as well as in airports
    before, between, and after flights. SkyWest Flight attendants
    are paid only for their time in the air, known in the industry
    as “block time.” 2 The amount of block time worked in a given
    day is much shorter than the “duty day.” 3 The eight Flight
    Attendants each pleaded, with varying specificity, times dur-
    ing which they were not paid for portions of their duty days.
    For example, plaintiff-appellant Stover alleged a two-week
    period in October 2012 during which she was paid $656.25 for
    1 This consolidated suit was brought by plaintiffs-appellants Andrea
    Hirst, Molly Stover, Emily Stroble Sze, Cheryl Tapp, Renee Sitavich, Sarah
    Hudson, Brandon Colson, and Brüno Lozano.
    2 As defined by the Flight Attendants, “block time” is the time be-
    tween “block out” (when a flight attendant closes the main cabin door for
    the aircraft to leave the gate) and “block in” (when an aircraft arrives at
    the destination jet bridge and a flight attendant opens the main cabin
    door).
    3 As defined by the Flight Attendants, the “duty day” is the difference
    between report time (the time at which a flight attendant must have
    cleared security at the airport) and release time (fifteen minutes after the
    cabin door opens at the day’s final destination).
    4                                       Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660
    86.07 hours of duty time, resulting in an average hourly wage
    of $7.62 per hour. In contrast, plaintiff-appellant Lozano
    alleged only that he worked many hours of duty time and
    included no wage-specific information. The common thread
    underlying the various Flight Attendants’ allegations, though,
    is that none of them alleged a single workweek in which they
    were paid, on average, less than $7.25 per hour, the federal
    minimum wage under FLSA, 
    29 U.S.C. § 206
    (a)(1)(C).
    Plaintiffs-appellants Hirst, Stover, and Stroble Sze sued in
    March 2015 in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that
    SkyWest violated the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage
    Law by failing to pay minimum wage. Several months later,
    plaintiffs-appellants Tapp, Sitavich, Hudson, Colson, and
    Lozano filed a similar action in the Northern District of Cali-
    fornia under the FLSA and state and local minimum wage
    laws and ordinances in California, Arizona, and Washington.
    Both complaints sought class certification of nationwide,
    state, and local classes. The two cases were consolidated in the
    Northern District of Illinois.
    After allowing multiple amended complaints and limited
    discovery, the district court dismissed all of the Flight Attend-
    ants’ claims with prejudice. The court determined that, in
    assessing violations of the federal minimum wage, an
    employee’s wage is calculated as the average hourly wage
    across the workweek. Because none of the Flight Attendants
    pleaded a single workweek in which they were paid an aver-
    age wage of less than $7.25 per hour, the court concluded they
    had not properly pleaded a FLSA violation. The district court
    also held that their state and local wage claims were
    preempted by the dormant Commerce Clause. Applying the
    approach the Supreme Court delineated in Pike v. Bruce
    Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660                                        5
    Church, Inc., 
    397 U.S. 137
     (1970), the district court ruled that
    requiring SkyWest to comply with state and local wage laws
    would impose too great of an administrative burden. The
    court reasoned that, with flight attendants flying to and from
    different states and cities all day, as well as flying over many
    more, the burden on SkyWest would be “clearly excessive in
    relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike, 
    397 U.S. at 142
    ;
    Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n v. Meyer, 
    63 F.3d 652
    , 657 (7th
    Cir. 1995) (same). The Flight Attendants timely appealed.
    II. FLSA Claims
    First, the Flight Attendants challenge the dismissal of their
    FLSA claims. We review an appeal from a motion to dismiss
    de novo. Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 
    742 F.3d 720
    , 727 (7th
    Cir. 2014).
    FLSA 
    29 U.S.C. § 206
     reads: “Every employer shall pay to
    each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in
    commerce … not less than—$7.25 an hour.” The Flight
    Attendants argue compliance with this provision should be
    measured differently depending on the wage practices of a
    given industry. They contend compliance for flight attendants
    should be measured by “pairing,” or work trip out and back
    from their base airport, instead of by workweek. SkyWest
    points out that every other federal circuit to reach this issue
    has applied the workweek measure to all industries, and
    FLSA compliance should therefore be determined from the
    average hourly pay over a given workweek.
    The text of 
    29 U.S.C. § 206
     does not state what measure
    should be used to determine compliance with the minimum
    wage, nor do any of the surrounding provisions provide guid-
    ance. In light of this, we turn to the interpretation of the
    6                                        Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660
    Department of Labor, the administrative agency charged with
    overseeing the FLSA. “When Congress leaves an administra-
    tive agency with discretion to resolve a statutory ambiguity,
    judicial review is deferential.” Ali v. Mukasey, 
    521 F.3d 737
    ,
    739 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def.
    Council, Inc, 
    467 U.S. 837
     (1984)). In 1940, less than two years
    after the FLSA was enacted, the Department of Labor issued
    a policy statement adopting the workweek as “the standard
    period of time over which wages may be averaged to deter-
    mine whether the employer has paid [the minimum wage].”
    Wage & Hour Release No. R-609 (Feb. 5, 1940), reprinted in
    1942 WAGE AND HOUR MANUAL (BNA) 185. While this policy
    statement has never been codified into an official regulation,
    to our knowledge and per the parties’ arguments, neither has
    the Department of Labor ever deviated from this understand-
    ing. Further, in the eighty years since the FLSA was passed,
    Congress has never seen fit to amend the law to change this
    understanding.
    Other circuits have uniformly adopted the Department’s
    per-workweek measure. See, e.g., Douglas v. Xerox Business
    Services, LLC, 
    875 F.3d 884
    , 887–88 (9th Cir. 2017); Hall v.
    DIRECTV, LLC, 
    846 F.3d 757
    , 777 (4th Cir. 2017); U.S. Dep't of
    Labor v. Cole Enterprises, Inc., 
    62 F.3d 775
    , 780 (6th Cir. 1995);
    Hensley v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 
    786 F.2d 353
    , 357
    (8th Cir. 1986); Olson v. Superior Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 
    765 F.2d 1570
    , 1576 (11th Cir. 1985), modified on other grounds, 
    776 F.2d 265
     (11th Cir. 1985); Dove v. Coupe, 
    759 F.2d 167
    , 171–72 (D.C.
    Cir. 1985); Blankenship v. Thurston Motor Lines, 
    415 F.2d 1193
    ,
    1198 (4th Cir. 1969); United States v. Klinghoffer Bros. Realty
    Corp., 
    285 F.2d 487
    , 490 (2d Cir. 1960). We see no reason to
    deviate from the Department’s interpretation or the consen-
    sus of other federal appellate courts. Therefore, we adopt the
    Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660                                          7
    per-workweek measure for determining compliance with
    
    29 U.S.C. § 206
    , without industry-specific carveouts.
    We now apply the per-workweek measure to the plead-
    ings before us. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to
    state a claim, the Flight Attendants needed to allege sufficient
    facts to plead a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
    Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic
    Corp. v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 570 (2007)). Several federal
    circuits have analyzed the minimum pleading requirements
    for FLSA claims under a similarly constructed provision gov-
    erning overtime pay, 
    29 U.S.C. § 207
    (a)(1). For example, the
    Second and Ninth Circuits have held that for overtime claims,
    plaintiffs must “allege facts demonstrating there was at least
    one workweek in which they worked in excess of forty hours
    and were not paid overtime wages.” Landers v. Quality Comm.,
    Inc., 
    771 F.3d 638
    , 646 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added) (citing
    Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 
    726 F.3d 85
    , 90 (2nd Cir.
    2013)). Though plaintiffs need not necessarily plead specific
    dates and times that they worked undercompensated hours,
    they must “provide some factual context that will nudge their
    claim from conceivable to plausible.” Hall, 846 F.3d at 777
    (emphasis in original) (quoting Dejesus, 726 F.3d at 90).
    The same principles for pleading overtime pay violations
    apply to minimum wage violations. In order to comply with
    the requirements of Twombly, Iqbal, and FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2),
    a plaintiff alleging a federal minimum wage violation must
    provide sufficient factual context to raise a plausible inference
    there was at least one workweek in which he or she was
    underpaid. Here, as demonstrated by the district court’s thor-
    ough and detailed analysis, see Hirst v. SkyWest, Inc.,
    
    283 F. Supp. 3d 684
    , 688–89 (N.D. Ill. 2017), no plaintiff did so,
    8                                             Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660
    even after the district court permitted the Flight Attendants to
    conduct limited discovery. Claiming they worked many
    hours and citing several weeks in which they were paid the
    minimum wage is not enough to render their claims plausible.
    We affirm the dismissal of the Flight Attendants’ FLSA
    claims.
    III. State and Local Claims
    The Flight Attendants next argue their state and local
    wage claims should be reinstated. They contend the dormant
    Commerce Clause does not apply to this case. Even if it does
    apply, the Flight Attendants aver the district court did not
    properly analyze the benefits to state and local governments,
    and that the FLSA expressly permits the application of state
    and local wage laws to employers. SkyWest responds that
    under Pike the dormant Commerce Clause does apply to this
    case, and that the district court accurately assessed the
    burdens on SkyWest to comply with state and local wage
    laws.
    The Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority “[t]o
    regulate Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. CONST.
    art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Supreme Court has inferred a “dormant”
    aspect of the Commerce Clause “that limits states’ abilities to
    restrict interstate commerce.” Minerva Dairy, Inc. v. Harsdorf,
    
    905 F.3d 1047
    , 1058 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing New Energy Co. of
    Ind. v. Limbach, 
    486 U.S. 269
    , 273 (1988)). 4 Under the dormant
    4 Given its lack of a textual anchor, the continued validity of the
    dormant Commerce Clause has been questioned, see, e.g., South Dakota v.
    Wayfair, 
    138 S. Ct. 2080
    , 2100 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring), 
    id. at 2100
    (Gorsuch, J., concurring), but it remains valid law absent a Supreme Court
    directive to the contrary.
    Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660                                               9
    Commerce Clause, we invalidate a state law only where there
    is a clear showing of discrimination against interstate com-
    merce, “either expressly or in practical effect.” Park Pet Shop,
    Inc. v. City of Chicago, 
    872 F.3d 495
    , 501 (7th Cir. 2017).
    The dormant Commerce Clause serves as a bulwark
    against local protectionism. As such, “if the state law affects
    commerce without any reallocation among jurisdictions and
    does not give local firms any competitive advantage over
    those located elsewhere, we apply the normal rational basis
    standard.” Minerva Dairy, Inc., 905 F.3d at 1053 (internal quo-
    tation marks and citations omitted); see also id. at 1058–59. Sky-
    West is subject to many minimum wage laws that impose
    serious compliance costs. But the existence of a great regula-
    tory burden on an employer does not necessarily mean mini-
    mum wage laws have a discriminatory effect on interstate
    commerce. State and local wage laws can burden companies
    within their own localities just as much, if not more, than out-
    of-state ones. All airlines—indeed all employers—are subject
    to these laws, regardless of state citizenship. “Pike balancing
    is triggered only when the challenged law discriminates against
    interstate commerce in practical application.” Park Pet Shop,
    872 F.3d at 502 (emphases in original). SkyWest has failed to
    allege any discrimination against interstate commerce. This
    failing precludes the application of the dormant Commerce
    Clause to the Flight Attendants’ state and local claims.
    Even if minimum wage laws did discriminate against
    interstate commerce, the dormant Commerce Clause does not
    apply to state and local laws expressly authorized by Con-
    gress. See, e.g., Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Bd. of Gov’rs of Fed. Res.
    Sys., 
    472 U.S. 159
    , 174 (1985) (“When Congress so chooses,
    state actions which it plainly authorizes are invulnerable to
    10                                       Nos. 17-3643 & 17-3660
    constitutional attack under the Commerce Clause.”); Milwau-
    kee Cty. Pavers Ass’n v. Fiedler, 
    922 F.2d 419
    , 424 (7th Cir. 1991)
    (“If Congress wants, it can authorize states to engage in activ-
    ities that but for the authorization would violate the dormant
    commerce clause.”). The FLSA contains such an express
    authorization. Section 218(a) of the FLSA reads: “No provi-
    sion of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse
    noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal
    ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the min-
    imum wage established under this chapter … .” Because Con-
    gress expressly authorized states and localities to legislate in
    this realm, the application of multiple minimum wage laws to
    an employer cannot violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the dismissal of the
    FLSA claims, and REVERSE and REMAND for further proceed-
    ings on the state and local claims.