Fodera, Jr. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 24, 20223:19-cv-05072California9,889 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

BACKGROUND

26 The plaintiffs are current or former employees of Equinox, a company that operates high- 27 Certification (“Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 68] 2:25-3:11. Equinox offers its members services that include 2 individual personal training sessions, group fitness classes, and Pilates. Oppo. [Dkt. No. 85] 1:14- 3 16. Fodera and Bonella worked for Equinox as both personal trainers and group fitness 4 instructors; Billson was a Pilates instructor and group fitness instructor. Mot. at 2:27-3:11. 5 According to the plaintiffs, personal trainers, group fitness instructors, and Pilates 6 instructors (whom they collectively call “fitness instructors” or “FIs”) have “virtually identical job duties and compensation structures.” Id. at 3:14-16. They are paid a flat rate (a “session rate” or “class rate”) for each session or class they teach. Id. at 3:16-17. They are also required to perform 10 “session-related activities,” which include scheduling the session or class, setting it up, cleaning 11 up after, and interacting with clients before and after. Mot. at 3:18-4:4 (citing Ex. 6). Although 12 employees clock in when teaching sessions, the plaintiffs allege that they…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.