HILL v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES LLC (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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. After denying Xerox’s motion for partial summary judgment, the district court certified its ruling for intermediate interlocutory appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and we affirm.

Because this appeal raised unsettled issues under Washington’s Minimum Wage Act, we certified the following question of state law to the Washington Supreme Court:

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.

Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 868 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2017). The Washington Supreme Court accepted our certified question and answered it in the negative. Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 191 Wash.2d 751, 426 P.3d 703, 708 (2018). The court held: “an employer’s payment plan that includes as a metric an employee’s ‘production minutes’ does not qualify as a piecework plan under WAC 296-126-021.” Id. at 705. Pursuant to the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion, the district court’s denial of partial summary judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.