Case: Eichmann v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
3:15-cv-00131 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: Jan. 9, 2015
Closed Date: Jan. 6, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This class action lawsuit challenges the compensation scheme that Delta Air Lines used for its flight attendants.
On January 9, 2015, a private plaintiff brought a class action suit against Delta Air Lines, Inc., in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff observed that defendant laid out its compensation structures in its Work Rules, which outlined different payment structures from “Flight Pay”, “Duty Period Credit Pay”, “Duty Period Average”, and “Trip Pay Credit” for flight attendants. The Flight Pay formula was the primary pay structure defendant used, and it set forth that flight attendants would be paid a set hourly rate, from the time that an aircraft leaves the gate until it blocks in at the destination. Plaintiff argued that this pay scheme did not properly compensate flight attendants for all the hours they worked, as it conspicuously excluded work time at the airport before or after flights, time spent onboard before an aircraft leaves a gate, and other significant windows of time. Plaintiff also argued that the Duty Period Average also failed to capture total work time, as it failed to account for work outside of flight attendants’ scheduled start and end times; the Trip Pay Creditor paid a flat 4.75 hour average, regardless of the number of hours actually worked, in violation of minimum wage laws. Plaintiff further noted that flight attendants’ work outside of their scheduled windows was longer in California, for reasons such as longer deplaning times in the state. Plaintiff was a flight attendant for Delta Air Lines for fifteen years, and regularly worked in the state of California during his employment, and he alleged that he himself had been subject to the defendant’s payment structures. Plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of individuals who are or were employed by Delta Air Lines, performed some or all of their work for defendant in the state of California, and were denied proper compensation, with two distinct subclasses of flight attendants who performed work for defendant in San Francisco and San Jose respectively.
Plaintiff alleged that (1) the defendant’s actions violated California labor law, which set minimum wage at $9.00 an hour and requires employers to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) on behalf of himself and a putative subclass of flight attendants in San Francisco, that defendant’s actions violate San Francisco’s Minimum Wage Ordinance, which set minimum wage in the city to $11.05 an hour; (3) on behalf of a putative subclass of flight attendants in San Jose, that defendant’s actions violate San Jose’s Minimum Wage Ordinance, which set minimum wage in the city to $10.30 an hour; (4) defendant violated California Labor Code § 203, which requires employers pay full wages when due; (5) defendant violated California Labor Code §226, which requires employers to give employees accurate, written, itemized wage statements with each paycheck – plaintiff observed that defendant failed to itemize plaintiffs’ and other flight attendants’ hours; and last, (6) defendant;s conduct violated California Unfair Competition Law, as codified in its Business and Professional Code, by failing to comply with state wage law and thereby significantly threatening or harming competition at the expense of its employees and the public at large. Plaintiff sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. With leave of the court, plaintiff amended his complaint on May 22, 2015 to add two named plaintiffs who had also been employed by defendants and alleged they were improperly compensated for their work. Beyond adding the plaintiffs and adding details as to their employment with defendant, the amended complaint largely re-alleged the claims from the original complaint.
On September 29, 2015, defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, requesting summary judgment specifically on plaintiffs’ first, second, and third claims (the alleged violations of California, San Francisco, and San Jose minimum wage laws). On October 14, 2015, plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to their first cause of action (the alleged violation of California’s minimum wage law) and opposition to defendant’s motion.
On December 29, 2015, the court granted defendant’s motion as to plaintiffs’ first, second, and third claims, denying plaintiff’s cross-motion. Looking at a range of caselaw on similar questions, the court was persuaded that defendant’s Work Rules ensured that flight attendants were paid for all hours worked, meeting minimum guarantees. First, plaintiffs were paid at least minimum wage for all duty hours. The court also held that the Flight Pay formula did not violate state law even though it did not exactly capture hours worked because it was utilized only to increase pay beyond minimum wage; in fact, on average, flight attendants earn more than California’s minimum wage floor. The court was also persuaded that the defendant’s Work Rules were used to ensure that flight attendants are compensated correctly, and there was no evidence that defendants promised to compensate at Flight Pay rates for the entire working period. As such, the court found that the defendant’s Work Rules did not contravene California law, and found it appropriate to dismiss those claims.
On February 10, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs largely re-alleged their facts, adding details as to plaintiffs’ employment with Delta Airlines. Plaintiffs also largely re-alleged their original claims; however, they removed the claims relating to San Francisco and San Jose’s city-level minimum wages, and added one new claim, alleging that plaintiffs are entitled to recover civil penalties for defendant’s alleged violations of California Labor Code per the Private Attorneys General Act.
Both parties subsequently sought summary judgment on the remaining claims in the amended complaint. On January 6, 2017, the court held that it would grant defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying plaintiffs’ motion. The court held that the dispute in the case hinged on whether the provisions of the California Labor Code that plaintiffs staked their claim on apply here, given that the plaintiffs worked a de minimis amount of time in California during the relevant periods. The court concluded that it did not: performance of some minimal amount of work in California was not sufficient to trigger the California Labor Code. Given the amount of work performed and the fact that Delta was not a California-based employer, it was appropriate to conclude the Labor Code did not apply, and therefore that none of the plaintiffs’ claims could survive.
On January 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal (docket no. 17-15124). Circuit Judges Paul J. Watford and Michelle T. Friedland and Senior District Judge Jed S. Rakoff heard the matter. On May 11, 2018, the Ninth Circuit requested that the Supreme Court of California exercise its discretion over the certified legal questions on state law that the appeal raised. The Ninth Circuit panel held that as no controlling California precedent exists for the legal questions raised and California has a strong interest in enforcing its minimum wage law, it was appropriate to have the matter filed in the Supreme Court of California. The California Supreme Court, on June 29, 2020, held the following: (1) that flight attendants are protected by the California Labor Code if they are based for work purposes in California, and do not predominantly spend their time in one state, and (2) Delta’s credit-based pay structure, as outlined in its Work Rules, do not violate the minimum wage laws of California.
After the California Supreme Court made that determination, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision. The Ninth Circuit held it appropriate to (1) affirm the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs’ minimum wage claims, as the California Supreme Court had agreed that Delta did not violate California’s minimum wage laws; (2) dismiss one plaintiff’s Labor Code §§226 and 204 claims, as that plaintiff was not based in California; and (3) reversed the district court’s decision to grant judgment to defendants on the other plaintiffs’ Labor Code §§226 and 204 claims, as the California Supreme Court had held flight attendants such as plaintiffs may be protected by the Labor Code, and the Ninth Circuit held that this did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to the district court.
Defendants filed a petition for panel rehearing en blanc, but the Ninth Circuit declined the petition. Defendants then filed a writ of certiorari on September 9, 2021 to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a judgment on whether applying California Labor Code to persons like the plaintiffs violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. However, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant cert.
On February 25, 2022, plaintiffs filed a new motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that §226 and 204 of the California Labor Code applied and were clearly violated, and that they were entitled to injunctive relief. On March 18, 2022, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion as to the same.
On May 10, 2022, plaintiffs also filed a statement of recent decision, to notify the court of a decision recently reached in Felicia Vidrio v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. CV15-7985 PSG (MRWx), relevant to the questions raised by the cross-motions for summary judgment. After hearing oral arguments, the court granted the parties leave to file supplemental briefings, which the parties did promptly.
On July 8, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions by both parties. The court held the following: (1) That the protections of the California Labor Code do apply to plaintiffs, and therefore that summary judgment to plaintiffs is appropriate for their §204 claims for the pay periods up until September 1, 2018; the court granted summary judgment to defendants for the claims after that date. First, the court held that as plaintiffs do not perform a majority of their work in any one state, that they validly are entitled to the protections of the California Labor Code. For the plaintiff’s §204 wage timing claim, the court held that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that before September 1, 2018, plaintiffs were compensated on a delayed payment schedule, violating California law requiring timely payment. Delta rectified the problem after September 1, 2018, by implementing a new system that paid employees bi-weekly. As such, the court held it appropriate to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs for this claim as to payments made before September 1, 2018, but not for payments made after. (2) Defendant is entitled to a good faith defense for plaintiffs’ claims for statutory damages under §226 for the wage statement violations prior to January 10, 2022 – but not for violations that occurred after. The court found §226 claims on inaccurate wage statements that defendant’s wage statements do not show total hours worked, a required provision under the California Labor Code, and that plaintiffs clearly established injury. The court held that defendant had a valid good faith belief that its actions were lawful, as the case law on this issue was unsettled – however, that good faith defense no longer applied when the adverse rulings came out from the Ninth Circuit, California Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court. The court therefore granted defendants summary judgment on this claim for violations prior to January 10, 2022 – but found for plaintiffs as to violations that occurred afterwards. (3) Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on Delta’s liability for their §226 violations under the Private Attorneys General Act, as per a matter of law violations of §226 give rise to liability under the Act, regardless of good faith defenses. (4) Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ unfair competition claims, as defendant’s argument for summary judgment on this claim was based on its assumption that the §§226 and 204 claims were not valid – but the court found that those claims survive summary judgment. (5) Lastly, the court found the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief, as such relief is rarely granted and plaintiffs had not yet demonstrated harm rising to the level that such relief is necessary at this time.
On August 4, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a putative class of flight attendants employed by defendants and based at a California airport between January 10, 2022 to October 7, 2022, who did not participate in defendant’s enhanced retirement or opt-out programs. The putative class that plaintiffs sought to certify was narrower than that in their complaint, a change made after the court had denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On September 22, 2023, the court granted the motion to certify the class, finding that all Rule 23(b) requirements were met. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint, to reflect the new narrower class certification and claims specific to that class. The court also appointed class representatives and class counsel at the time.
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on October 2, 2023, per the court’s request, which reflected the narrower class certification that they sought and had received approval for.
On October 17, 2023, to seek to potentially avoid further litigation, the court referred the case to magistrate court to determine if a settlement outcome could be achieved. The case was initially referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson, but then referred two days later to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros, who oversaw the settlement discussions. The parties, with the oversight of the court, engaged in continued settlement negotiations and settlement conferences. On March 22, 2024, the parties finally agreed to a settlement in principle.
While the entire settlement terms are not available to the Clearinghouse, the settlement broadly consisted of the following terms:
- A putative settlement class is established, of individuals who were employed by Delta Air Lines as flight attendants based in California between January 9, 2014 through March 31, 2024 who did not participate in Delta’s enhanced retirement/opt out programs.
- Defendant will pay a gross settlement amount of $15,900,000, to be used to pay the class representatives, putative class, and administrative costs and fees.
- Legal Aid at Work was designated as the cy pres recipient of any unclaimed funds remaining after distribution.
- The agreement noted that at the same time that the plaintiffs move the court for final approval of the settlement terms, Delta Air Lines would move the court to enter a proposed consent decree, approving the form of the wage statements to be provide to class members and confirming that the wage statements comply with California law and the court’s prior order. Plaintiff agreed it would not oppose Delta Air Lines’ motion to approve the consent decree.
On May 15, 2024, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for conditional certification of a putative settlement class and preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement. On May 17 plaintiffs also filed a fourth and final amended complaint, to reflect the new putative settlement class agreed to in the settlement agreement.
On July 16, 2024, the Honorable William H. Orrick of the district court hearing the matter granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The court found that the terms of the settlement were within the range of possible approval, and that its terms were fair and reasonable. The court therefore granted conditional certification of the settlement class, and approved the notice of settlement.
On November 13, 2024, the court granted final approval of the settlement terms.
Per the terms of the settlement agreement, defendant made a request to the court for entry or approval of a proposed consent decree. On November 18, 2024, the court declined to grant defendant’s request: it noted that the proposed consent decree was not a true consent decree – the settlement agreement was never contingent upon it, and there was no evidence the parties reached some comprise to support its entry.
On December 2, 2024, the court entered judgment in accordance with its November 2024 order. The judgment affirmed final approval of the settlement terms, dismissing the case.
Summary Authors
Keren Yi (4/24/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181486/parties/eichmann-v-delta-air-lines-inc/
Brome, Daniel S. (California)
Helland, Matthew C. (California)
Frederick, Andrew Paul (California)
Hendricks, Robert Jon (California)
Horn, Taylor D. (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181486/eichmann-v-delta-air-lines-inc/
Last updated April 12, 2026, 4:41 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 9, 2015
Closing Date: Jan. 6, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs were flight attendants employed by Delta, whose employment encompassed work at California airports
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Delta Air Lines
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:15-cv-00131
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 15124
Supreme Court of the United States 21-396
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $15,900,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Eichmann v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/45654/ (last updated 4/24/2025).