# MCENHEIMER v. WALMART, INC.

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · August 26, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10417997

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 26, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10417997

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that monetary payments for rest breaks pursuant to an agreement between an employer and employee are wages under the WPCL

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT MCENHEIMER, )
on behalf of himself and similarly )
situated employees, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-46
)
WALMART, INC., )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV of
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 24). Defendant filed a Memorandum in
Support of its Motion, Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition thereto, and Defendant filed a Reply.
(Docket Nos. 25, 28, 31).1 The matter is now ripe for disposition.
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
(“WPCL”) claim at Count IV of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Individual and Collective/Class
Action Complaint (Docket No. 22, hereinafter “Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”), and his
breach of contract claim at Count III of the SAC, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant’s motion
is principally based on the argument that Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of an express or
implied contract that obligated Defendant to pay a specific category of wages separate from any
statutory obligation. For reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion will be denied.

1 Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply with his attached proposed Sur-reply, and Defendant
filed a brief in opposition thereto. (Docket Nos. 32, 32-1, 34). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion, in the Alternative,
for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, and Defendant filed a brief in opposition thereto. (Docket Nos. 33, 35).
For the reasons set forth, infra, those motions shall be denied as moot.
The WPCL2 does not create an independent right to compensation. Rather, it provides a
statutory remedy that is available when an employer breaches a contractual obligation to pay
earned wages. See De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 309 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Antol
v. Esposto, 100 F.3d 1111, 1117 (3d Cir. 1996), and Weldon v. Kraft, Inc., 896 F.2d 793, 801 (3d
Cir. 1990)). “‘The contract between the parties governs in determining whether specific wages
are earned.’” See id. (quoting Antol, 100 F.3d at 1117 (internal citation and quotation marks

omitted)). Where an employee does not work under a written employment contract or collective
bargaining agreement, the employee will have to establish the formation of an implied oral contract
to recover under the WPCL. See id. at 309-10; see also Braun v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 24 A.3d
875, 954 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (citing De Asencio, 342 F.3d at 309). Such implied oral contract
for wages arises “when parties agree on the obligation to be incurred, but their intention, instead
of being expressed in words, is inferred from the relationship between the parties and their conduct
in light of the surrounding circumstances.” Oxner v. Cliveden Nursing & Rehab. Ctr. PA, L.P.,
132 F. Supp. 3d 645, 649 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (“‘[A] promise to pay the reasonable value of the service
is implied where one performs for another, with the other’s knowledge, a useful service of a
character that is usually charged for, and the latter expresses no dissent or avails himself of the
service.’” (quoting Martin v. Little, Brown & Co., 450 A.2d 984, 987 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981))).
Accordingly, both Counts III and IV of the SAC necessitate averments that Defendant breached a
contract between the parties for the payment of wages.
Here, the SAC adequately avers facts which allow this Court to draw a reasonable inference

that Defendant breached an implied contract to pay wages for all time spent performing work
duties in compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable precedent.
See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

2 43 P.S. § 260.1 et seq.
678 (2009); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Notably, the SAC
avers that:
As Hourly Associates, Plaintiff and all other Hourly Associates in
Pennsylvania were promised to be paid for all time spent
performing the work duties of an Hourly Associate (i.e., duties
including but not limited to unloading trucks and similar vehicles,
shelving and stocking inventory, working the cash register,
communicating with customers).

(Docket No. 22, ¶ 31 (emphasis added)). Plaintiff also alleges that he and similarly situated
employees were promised payment for all time spent performing work duties, and that they were
assigned and performed these and other duties. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 23-25, 30(a)-(d), 34, 54, 55). Plaintiff
additionally alleges that he and similarly situated employees performed their duties during
mandatory meal breaks, without being paid for their work, in breach of agreed upon terms of
employment and in violation of the WPCL. (Id. ¶¶ 55-60, 74, 77, 78, 80, 117-131).
Defendants, however, contend that such averments are insufficient to plead a contractual
obligation to pay a specific category of wages separate from any statutory obligation derived from
the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”).
(Docket No. 25 at 5). The Court disagrees and concludes that the SAC adequately pleads plausible
breach of contract and WPCL claims for the payment of wages for “all time spent performing the
work duties of an Hourly Associate” during employer-mandated meal breaks, and possibly at other
times too. (Docket No. 22, ¶ 31). These claims are based upon the parties’ alleged implied contract
and are independent of any statutory entitlement to compensation. Indeed, Plaintiff’s alleged
agreement to be paid for all time spent performing his work duties may be different in scope than
compensable time pursuant to the FLSA and PMWA.3

3 The U.S. Department of Labor’s regulation promulgated pursuant to the FLSA pertaining to bona fide meal
periods provides, in relevant part:
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2022, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 24)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (Docket

No. 32), and Plaintiff’s Motion, in the Alternative, for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
(Docket No. 33), are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint by September 9, 2022.
s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge

cc/ecf: All counsel of record

Bona fide meal periods are not worktime. Bona fide meal periods do not include
coffee breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be
completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily
30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period
may be long enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he
is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating. For
example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker
who is required to be at his machine is working while eating.

29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a); cf. Braun, 24 A.3d at 957-58 (holding that monetary payments for rest breaks pursuant to an
agreement between an employer and employee are wages under the WPCL).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10417997. Public record. Not legal advice.