Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar (CA5 F089576 4/21/26) Wage and Hour Class Certification – Employment Law Weekly

Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar (CA5 F089576 4/21/26) Wage and Hour Class Certification

Plaintiff Adam Martinez appeals the denial of his motion for class certification of wage and hour claims against his former employer.  Martinez alleges Sierra Lifestar, Inc. (Lifestar) miscalculated the “regular rate of pay” (Lab. Code, § 510, subd. (a)) of approximately 135 workers by excluding nondiscretionary bonuses, which caused Lifestar to underpay overtime, double time, and premiums for meal and rest periods.  

Lifestar opposed class certification, arguing common questions of law or fact did not predominate and, furthermore, Martinez’s claim was not typical of the proposed classes.  Lifestar supported this argument by asserting it paid 10 types of bonuses, each type of bonus had its own criteria, Martinez was paid only one type of bonus, and he received that “EMS Bonus” only once.  “EMS Bonus” is Lifestar’s pay code for a bonus given to its employees in connection with National Emergency Medical Services Week. 

The trial court denied the motion for class certification on the sole ground that Martinez did not establish his claim was typical of the other claims arising from his theory that Lifestar improperly excluded bonuses when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay.  We conclude the trial court committed legal error in its analysis of whether a unique defense defeated the typicality of Martinez’s claim.  Lifestar’s arguments that Martinez’s EMS Bonus was properly excluded from his regular rate of pay because it was in the nature of a gift, was discretionary, or both, are not unique to Martinez.  Those arguments apply to all EMS Bonuses paid to Lifestar’s other employees for National Emergency Medical Services Week and, therefore, are not unique to Martinez. 

We therefore reverse the order denying class certification and remand for further consideration of the class certification motion.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F089576.PDF

There are 0 comments

Share:

More Posts

Send Us A Message

Skip to content