Dietrick
Dietrick v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Tigar, J.
Re: ECF No.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In this action for claims of alleged violations of federal and California labor laws, Defendant Securitas moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment on all claims asserted in Plaintiff Michael Deatrick’s 1 Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Parties and Claims
Plaintiff Michael Deatrick is a former employee of Defendant Securitas Services USA, Inc. (“Securitas”), a national provider of security services. Deatrick worked for Securitas as a security guard for several years prior to being laid off. Deatrick alleges that Securitas failed to pay him and other security guards the full overtime compensation they were owed, because Securitas failed to take into account in the overtime calculation the payments that security guards received in connection with Securitas’ “Vacation Pay Plan” (“the Plan”). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Deatrick alleges that Securitas improperly treated these payments (“the payments at issue”) as vacation payments under the FLSA, even though such payments were, in practice, retention or productivity bonuses.