JOHN MITCHELL an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN MITCHELL an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota
Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-55888
D.C. No.
2:13-cv-06624-MWF-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,** District
Judge.
FILED
MAR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Plaintiff-Appellant John Mitchell appeals the district court’s decision to
grant Defendant-Appellee Medtronic’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s claims
pertaining to the calculation of overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). A district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim is reviewed de novo. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1102
(9th Cir. 2003). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Under the FLSA, overtime is calculated from an employee’s regular rate of
pay. The “regular rate” under the FLSA means the hourly rate actually paid for the
normal, non-overtime work week, Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U.S. 37, 40
(1944), and includes all remunerations paid to the employee, except for those
payments exempt under the FLSA. One such exemption is for “extra
compensation provided by a premium rate paid for certain hours worked . . . in
excess of the employee’s normal working hours.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(5).
According to the Department of Labor’s regulations, premium rates paid “pursuant
to the requirements of another applicable statute” fall within the § 207(e)(5)
exemption. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.202(d).
Medtronic’s meal payments to its California employees were fully consistent
with the payments mandated by California Labor Code § 226.7(c). Because
Medtronic’s meal payments were made pursuant to the statutory requirement of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7(c), they were properly excluded from the calculation of
Medtronic’s California employees’ regular rate of pay.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --