Case No. 18-55682 United States Court of Appeals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
(1 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 1 of 4 CASE NO. 18-55682 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARISHA RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. Appeal From The United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:17-cv-00672-JLS-WVG, Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, Presiding MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY U.S. CHAMBER LITIGATION MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP CENTER Malcolm A. Heinicke Steven P. Lehotsky Katherine M. Forster 1615 H Street, N.W. 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Washington, D.C. 20062 Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (202) 463-5337 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (2 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 2 of 4 The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (“Chamber”) hereby moves, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for leave to file the accompanying brief as amicus curiae in the above-captioned matter. The Chamber the world’s largest business federation. It represents 300,000 direct members and indirectly represents the interests of more than 3 million companies and professional organizations of every size, in every industry sector, and from every region of the country. The outcome of this proceeding has the potential to impact the Chamber’s members and other businesses throughout this country that seek in good faith to provide valuable retirement and other benefits to employees. The Chamber respectfully requests permission to submit the accompanying brief so that it can present the Court with analysis on two points: (1) the proper construction of the FLSA’s regular rate exclusions in light of Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1142 (2018), and (2) the validity of 29 C.F.R. § 778.215(a)(3), the interpretive guidance on which Plaintiff-Appellant bases her contention that trust contributions under Defendant-Appellee’s Profit Sharing Plan do not qualify for exclusion from the regular rate of pay. While the Chamber agrees with Defendant-Appellee’s analysis in its Answering Brief, and submits that the Court may affirm here without reaching the issue of whether § 778.215(a)(3) is 1 (3 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 3 of 4 valid, the analysis in the accompanying brief will assist the Court in the event it does find it necessary to determine the validity of § 778.215(a)(3). Counsel for the Chamber sought the consent of the parties to file an amicus curiae brief in this matter. Defendant-Appellee consented. Plaintiff-Appellant did not respond to the Chamber’s request prior to the time this Motion was filed. DATED: October 31, 2018 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Katherine M. Forster MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Malcolm A. Heinicke Katherine M. Forster 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America 2 (4 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. 32(A)(7)(C) AND CIRCUIT RULE 32-1 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a)(7)(C) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, I certify that the attached brief is proportionally spaced, has a typeface of 14 points and contains 581 words. DATED: October 31, 2018 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Katherine M. Forster Katherine M. Forster MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 [email protected] MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Malcolm A. Heincke 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3089 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America 3 (5 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-2, Page 1 of 124 CASE NO. 18-55682 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARISHA RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. Appeal From The United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:17-cv-00672-JLS-WVG, Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, Presiding BRIEF OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT- APPELLEE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY U.S. CHAMBER LITIGATION MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP CENTER Malcolm A. Heinicke Steven P. Lehotsky Katherine M. Forster 1615 H Street, N.W. 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Washington, D.C. 20062 Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (202) 463-5337 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (6 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-2, Page 2 of 124 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (“Chamber”) states that it is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization incorporated in the District of Columbia. The Chamber has no parent corporation, and no publicly held company has 10% or greater ownership in the Chamber. (7 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-2, Page 3 of 124 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 8 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 13 I. GEICO Has Demonstrated That Its Cash Payments Are Properly Excluded From The Regular Rate Of Pay. .................................................... 13 II. GEICO Has Demonstrated That Plaintiff’s Trust Contribution Claims Fail Regardless of Whether 29 C.F.R. § 778.215(a)(3) Is Persuasive. ......... 16 III. Even If This Court Rejects The Above Contentions, The Trust Contributions Are Still Properly Excluded From The Regular Rate, Because GEICO Has Satisfied The Statutory Exclusion For Retirement Contributions, And Plaintiff’s Urged Application Of The Guidance Is Invalid. ....................................................................................... 19 A. The Statutory Exclusion Must Be Interpreted Fairly, Not Narrowly Construed. ........................................................................... 20 B. GEICO’s Plan Satisfies The Requirements Of The FLSA. ................ 25 C. Section 778.215(a)(3)’s Extra-Statutory Requirement Is Not Entitled To Deference. ........................................................................ 26 1. Section 778.215(a)(3) Was Not A Contemporaneous Interpretation. ............................................................................ 29 2. Section 778.215(a)(3) Was Not Thoroughly Considered, Was Inconsistent With Earlier Pronouncements, And Was Offered Without Any Reasoning, Much Less Valid Reasoning. ................................................................................. 30 D. Finding That The Exclusion Applies Here Would Not Undermine The Purpose Of The Law And Indeed Would Support It. ............................................................................................ 33 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 36 2 (8 of 135) Case: 18-55682, 10/31/2018, ID: 11068173, DktEntry: 24-2, Page 4 of 124 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) FEDERAL CASES Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 27 Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446 (1948) ...................................................................................... 14, 24 Brock v. Two R Drilling Co., 789 F.2d 1177 (5th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 14, 16 Carley v. Crest Pumping Technologies, L.L.C., 890 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 21 Cleary ex rel. Cleary v. Waldman, 167 F.3d 801 (3d Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 26 Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016) .................................................................................. 20, 28 Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) .......................................................................... 11, passim Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755 (1949) ............................................................................................ 24 Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890, 903 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 28 Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017) ........................................................................................ 23 Madison v. Resources for Human Development, Inc., 233 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2000)