Whitfield sued Levi Strauss in the Northern District of California, asserting claims under Nevada state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding unpaid wages and overtime at the company's Henderson Distribution Center. Levi Strauss moved to dismiss the operative complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims failed to state a valid cause of action or were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).
The court granted dismissal of Whitfield's overtime claim under Nevada Revised Statutes section 608.018, ruling that the claim was preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. The judge determined that Whitfield, as an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), was not covered by the state statute because the CBA provided for overtime compensation in a different manner. Because the claim existed solely as a result of the CBA, it fell under LMRA preemption, and Whitfield failed to follow the mandatory grievance procedures outlined in the agreement.
The dismissal of the overtime claim is with leave to amend. During the hearing, Whitfield's counsel indicated that if the claim were dismissed, Whitfield would seek to amend the complaint to allege that the unions violated their duty of fair representation in administering the CBA's grievance procedures. The court held that the record did not establish such an amendment would be futile.
The court denied Levi Strauss's motion to dismiss Whitfield's waiting time claim under Nevada state law, rejecting the argument that the claim required interpretation of the CBAs. The judge noted that there was no active dispute over the meaning of contract terms regarding whether employees were entitled to pay for time spent waiting to swipe in or working before their shifts officially started.
Levi Strauss's counsel could not identify any CBA provisions addressing payment for waiting time or early arrival, pointing instead to provisions regarding shift differentials and wage rates that bore only on the extent of damages. The court held that the mere need to look to a collective-bargaining agreement for damages computation is an insufficient basis to find a claim preempted by the LMRA.
Consequently, the court also denied the motion to dismiss the claim for failure to timely pay all wages due, as Levi Strauss's counsel agreed that if the waiting time claim survived preemption, so too did the timely payment claim.
The court denied Levi Strauss's challenge to the scope of the FLSA collective action, which sought to limit the collective to the Henderson distribution center rather than a national group. The judge ruled that a challenge to the geographic scope of a collective is not properly brought as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss an entire claim, but is more appropriately addressed during the adjudication of a motion for notice to the collective.
Whitfield must file a Second Amended Complaint by May 11, 2026, to correct the deficiencies identified in the order. If no amended complaint is filed by that date, the dismissed claims will remain dismissed, and the case will proceed on the surviving waiting time, timely payment, and FLSA claims only.