Case Name: Carrie WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-09
Citations: 552 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 11-56757
Parties: Carrie WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 552
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
Carrie WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-56757.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 30, 2018.
Filed Jan. 9, 2014.
Dale Alan Harris and David Zelenski, Harris & Ruble, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David D. Kadue, Timothy M. Rusche, Esquire and Simon Lee Yang, Esquire, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs brought suit against their former employer, Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco"), under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code, alleging that Costco had improperly withheld wages from their final paychecks to repay the undisputed outstanding balances due on their company-guaranteed credit cards. On appeal, Plaintiffs claim that the district court erred in its judgment in favor of Costco after a bench trial. Plaintiffs argue that the district court made a "clear error[ ] of law" "by applying the credit-card deductions to employees' accrued vacation and sick pay." We review a district court's conclusions of law de novo. Just-Med, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir.2010).
The district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs failed to prove that Costco violated FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions. The FLSA does not require employers to pay all remaining vacation and sick pay to employees upon termination. The sum of vacation and sick pay for each Plaintiff exceeded the amount Costco deducted under the credit card agreement. It was undisputed that the hourly wages exceeded the overtime and minimum wage requirements. Hence, the district court correctly found that the credit card deductions did not effect a violation of the overtime and minimum wage requirements.
Likewise, the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs failed to prove that Costco violated California Labor Code Sections 201 and 203. This court "can affirm the district court on any grounds supported by the record." Tanaka v. Univ. of S. Cal., 252 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Weiser v. United States, 959 F.2d 146, 147 (9th Cir.1992)). Therefore, we need not decide whether the district court erred in ruling that Plaintiffs waived their California Labor Code Section 227.3 claim regarding vacation pay because we conclude that Plaintiffs' California Labor Code claims are foreclosed by the California Supreme Court's ruling in Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 610, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 218 P.3d 262 (2009). Prior to issuance of a credit card, each Plaintiff signed an agreement authorizing Costco to deduct the total remaining balance on his or her credit card from his or her final paycheck upon separation of employment with Costco. "Having elected to receive some of [their] compensation in the form of [credit card balances], . [Plaintiffs] cannot now assert that [they] should have been paid in cash that portion of [their] compensation [that Plaintiffs] elected to receive [in the form of credit card balances]." Id. at 270. Therefore, as in Schachter, we conclude that Costco did "not run afoul of the Labor Code because no earned, unpaid wages remain outstanding upon termination according to the terms of' Plaintiffs' agreements with Costco. Id. at 265.
For the same reasons, we also reject Plaintiffs' challenge to the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' post judgment motions. Finally, because we affirm the district court on the merits, we need not reach Plaintiffs' claim regarding the district court's denial of class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.