The appeal also addressed three distinct wage-and-hour policies challenged by the plaintiffs: overdeductions for Oregon’s Workers’ Benefit Fund, failure to pay for meal breaks cut short by more than 10 minutes (later clarified in the source as 20 minutes), and payroll deductions for mandatory non-slip shoes.
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment finding that JITB willfully overdeducted Workers’ Benefit Fund assessments, remanding for a trial on whether the employer consciously knew it was using an outdated employee deduction rate or made an innocent miscalculation.
On the meal break claims, the Ninth Circuit held that a 2019 Oregon Court of Appeals decision in Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC, interpreted existing regulations to require payment for shortened breaks, and that this interpretation applied retroactively. The panel concluded that under the reasoning of a more recent 2025 Oregon Court of Appeals decision, Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co., employers must pay for the full 30 minutes of interrupted meal periods pursuant to Oregon administrative rules before June 2010.
The court also reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to JITB on the shoe deduction claims, ruling that a jury must decide whether requiring employees to purchase shoes from a specific vendor was ultimately for the employees’ benefit, given that JITB collected rebates and indemnities from the vendor.
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to include class members whose mailed notices were undeliverable and held that Oregon law does not grant discretion to reduce prejudgment interest for plaintiff delays, though the district court must recalculate the interest on remand in light of the willfulness holding.