The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., in a wage and hour putative class action brought by former employees alleging that J.B. Hunt’s compensation scheme—the Driver Pay Plan— violated the California Labor Code.

Plaintiffs, who are California-based truck drivers, alleged that J.B. Hunt violated Cal. Labor Code § 226.2 by improperly paying them on a piece-rate basis without additional compensation for nonproductive time. They also alleged J.B. Hunt committed other Labor Code violations, such as failing to reimburse them for the necessary use of their personal cell phones.

Section 226.2 implemented new rules for employees compensated on a piece-rate basis, meaning that the employee is compensated based on activities completed as opposed to total hours worked. Section 226.2 carves out an exception—known as the “safe harbor” provision—for hybrid compensation plans.

The panel held that the Driver Pay Plan qualified for the safe harbor of § 226.2(a)(7), which requires that an employer “pays an hourly rate of at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked” in addition to paying any piece-rate compensation. That is what happened here. J.B. Hunt paid its employees an hourly wage for “all hours,” and supplemented that pay with a piece-rate-based bonus. Accordingly, the panel held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to J.B. Hunt as to plaintiffs’ first cause of action for unpaid wages to the extent that this cause of action was based on the purported unlawfulness of the Driver Pay Plan.

The panel held that plaintiffs had not otherwise shown a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether J.B. Hunt was otherwise liable for failing to pay plaintiffs for off-the-clock work.

The panel also held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of J.B. Hunt on plaintiffs’ Private Attorneys General Act and non-Private Attorneys General Act itemized wage statement claims.

Turning to the claims decided at trial, the panel held that the district court did not err by entering judgment in favor of J.B. Hunt on plaintiffs’ claims for failure to reimburse necessary business expenses under Cal. Labor Code § 2802 and the derivative reimbursement claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and PAGA. The district court did not abuse its discretion by improperly limiting evidence, testimony, and argument as to plaintiffs’ individual claims; by excluding evidence that J.B. Hunt changed its reimbursement policy; or by failing to provide adequate jury instructions.

Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs to J.B Hunt following the district court’s denial of the parties’ cross-motions to retax.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/12/24-2970.pdf