Hamilton v. Amazon.com Services LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 22-cv-00434-PAB-STV
DANIEL HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class Action
[Docket No. 26]. Defendant filed a response. Docket No. 49. Plaintiff filed a reply.
Docket No. 53.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
This case focuses on how Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Amazon”) calculates
overtime pay for its hourly employees. Amazon owns and operates at least five
warehouses in Colorado as part of its nationwide fulfillment network. Docket No. 5 at 3,
¶¶ 8-9. It employs “hundreds or even thousands of hourly employees,” including plaintiff
Daniel Hamilton, at these warehouses. Id., ¶¶ 7-8. Mr. Hamilton was offered various
“incentive payment structures” throughout his employment with Amazon designed to
encourage him to work additional shifts or to stay late after his scheduled shifts. Id. at
4, ¶ 11. These incentives included Holiday Incentive Pay (“HIP”), consisting of 1.5 times
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 10

2
the usual hourly pay rate, for working on designated company holidays, such as Labor
Day or Thanksgiving Day. Id., ¶¶ 12-14.
Mr. Hamilton’s complaint focuses on Amazon’s treatment of HIP for purposes of
calculating the rate of overtime pay. Id. Colorado law requires employers to pay
overtime “at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay.” Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 8-6-111(4). The “regular rate” of pay is the “hourly rate actually paid to employees,”
which is determined by dividing the total compensation an employee was paid in a given
week by the number of hours that the employee worked. 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1103-
1:1, § 1.8 (effective Jan. 1, 2022). The resulting regular rate of pay is multiplied by 1.5
to determine the amount of additional overtime pay that an employee should receive for
every overtime hour worked. 1 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-6-111(4).
According to the complaint, Amazon improperly excluded HIP from its calculation
of Mr. Hamilton’s regular rate. Docket No. 5 at 4, ¶ 19. Amazon did not include HIP
when adding up the total compensation that Mr. Hamilton was paid in a week, resulting
in a lower regular rate of pay than if Amazon had included HIP. Id., ¶¶ 19-20. Because
a worker’s regular rate of pay determines the amount of overtime pay that the worker
receives, Mr. Hamilton claims that Amazon’s failure to include HIP in his regular rate of
pay prevented Amazon from paying him all of the overtime he earned. Id. Mr. Hamilton
alleges three specific instances where he claims to have been underpaid as a result of
1 For example, if an employee’s total pay for a given week was $600 for 50 hours
of work, her regular rate would be $12 per hour, entitling her to $6 in overtime pay for
each overtime hour that she worked. As a result, she would earn an additional $60 in
overtime premium pay for that week because she worked 10 overtime hours.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 10

3
Amazon’s policies regarding HIP: the week of November 24, 2019, the week of
September 6, 2020, and the week of November 22, 2020. Id. at 7, ¶¶ 39-41.
Mr. Hamilton alleges that Amazon’s practice of excluding HIP from the
calculation of his regular rate violated Colorado wage law. Id., ¶ 42. Furthermore, Mr.
Hamilton claims that Amazon’s pay policies were uniform with respect to U.S. non-
exempt hourly employees working throughout Colorado. Id. at 5, ¶ 23. Because the
policies were uniform, Mr. Hamilton seeks to certify a class claim against Amazon on
behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees in Colorado who were subject to the policy
and worked on a company holiday. Id., ¶¶ 24-26.
Mr. Hamilton brings his case solely on the basis of Colorado law. See generally
Docket No. 5. Although the Colorado legislature sets the rate of overtime pay, it
delegates the authority to prescribe the “conditions and rules” governing overtime
compensation to the director of the Division of Labor. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-6-111(4); see
also Jordan v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., 950 F.3d 724, 727-28 (10th Cir. 2020)
(describing the statutory and regulatory scheme). The Division of Labor promulgates
orders each year that, among other things, define the regular rate of pay and describe
the types of pay that employers must include when calculating the regular rate of pay.
See, e.g., 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1103-1:1, § 1.8 (Jan. 1, 2022). The order in effect
during the first week that Mr. Hamilton alleges he was underpaid, the week of
November 24, 2019, was Colorado Minimum Wage Order # 35, 7 Colo. Code Regs.
§ 1103-1 (Jan. 1, 2019). The order in effect during the other occasions that Mr.
Hamilton alleges he was underpaid, the weeks of September 6 and November 22,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 10

4
2020, was Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order # 36, 7 Colo. Code
Regs. § 1103-1 (July 15, 2020).
B. Procedural History
Mr. Hamilton filed this action in Arapahoe County Court on January 14, 2022.
Docket No. 5. On February 17, 2022, Amazon removed the case to federal court.
Docket No. 1. On March 3, 2022, Amazon filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15.
On April 14, 2022, Mr. Hamilton filed a motion to certify a class action. Docket No. 26.
On March 3, 2023, the Court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss. Docket. No. 66.
The Court found that Amazon’s exclusion of HIP from the calculation of the regular rate
of pay complied with the FLSA and, because Colorado law is silent on the topic of
holiday premium pay, Amazon’s practice of following the FLSA did not violate Colorado
law. Id. at 7. Because it granted the motion to dismiss, the Court denied the motion to
certify a class action as moot. Id. at 8. Mr. Hamilton appealed the Court’s order.
Docket No. 68.
The Tenth Circuit found that the issue of whether Colorado wage law required
HIP to be included in the regular rate of pay was “an important and novel question of
state regulatory interpretation.” Docket No. 73 at 1. Thus, it certified the question to the
Colorado Supreme Court. Id. at 2. The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the
plain language of 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1103-1:1 § 1.8 dictated that holiday incentive
pay is included in the calculation of the regular rate of pay. Hamilton v. Amazon.com
Servs. LLC, 555 P.3d 620, 629 (Colo. 2024). In accordance with this finding, the Tenth
Circuit reversed the order dismissing Mr. Hamilton’s complaint and remanded the case
for further proceedings. Docket No. 77 at 2. The Court subsequently vacated its March
3, 2023 order and reinstated the motion to certify a class action. Docket No. 80 at 2-3.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 10

5
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may certify a class action if the proposed class satisfies the
prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) as well as the requirements of one of the three
types of classes identified in Rule 23(b). Menocal v. GEO Grp., Inc., 882 F.3d 905, 913
(10th Cir. 2018). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that Rule 23’s requirements
are satisfied. DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010)
(citing Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of the Cnty. of El Paso, 386 F.3d 963, 968 (10th
Cir. 2004)). Rule 23(a) requires that (1) the class be so numerous that joinder is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims
of the representative parties are typical of those of the class; and (4) the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a);
In re Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242, 249 (2d. Cir.
2011).
Mr. Hamilton asks the Court to certify a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3).
Docket No. 26 at 9. Under that provision, plaintiffs must show that “questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members” and that a class action “is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). In determining
predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), the court considers the following
factors: (A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or
defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or
undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D)
the likely difficulties in managing a class action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A)–(D).
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 10

6
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Hamilton seeks certification of a class consisting of “U.S. non-exempt hourly
employees who worked for Defendant, Amazon.com Services LLC, (“Amazon”) in AMZL
workplaces and Fulfillment Centers throughout Colorado who worked more than 40
hours during weeks in which they also worked on a company designated holiday
(“Company Holiday”), 2 from January 14, 2019, to present.” 3 Docket No. 26 at 1-2
(footnotes added). Mr. Hamilton also seeks to appoint his counsel as class counsel and
requests that the Court authorize his proposed notice to the class members. Id. at 12-
13. Amazon concedes that it is appropriate to certify this case as a class action and
does not contest that Mr. Hamilton has met the requirements of Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3). Docket No. 49 at 1. However, Amazon argues that the appropriate class
consists of employees who were employed on or after January 14, 2020. Id. at 1-2.
Amazon also objects to certain aspects of Mr. Hamilton’s proposed notice and argues
that Mr. Hamilton should utilize a third-party administrator. Id. at 9-15.
Although Amazon does not contest that Mr. Hamilton’s proposed class satisfies
the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), “certification is proper only if the trial court
is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been
satisfied.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-51 (2011) (citation and
internal quotations omitted). Thus, the Court must ensure that plaintiff has met his
2 Amazon’s company holidays are New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day,
Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.
Docket No. 26 at 2 n.1.
3 Mr. Hamilton does not specify the exact date of “present.” However, the parties
debate whether the appropriate statute of limitations for Mr. Hamilton’s claims is two
years or three years. Docket No. 49 at 5; Docket No. 53 at 2. Thus, because January
14, 2019 is three years before the complaint was filed, the Court presumes that
“present” means the date the complaint was filed, January 14, 2022.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 10

7
burden of proving that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied. The
Court finds the briefing on this issue is outdated in light of the Colorado Supreme
Court’s order in Hamilton, 555 P.3d 620.
For example, Rule 23(a) requires a district court to ensure that “there are
questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality
requires that plaintiffs demonstrate that the class members have “suffered the same
injury” such that the claims of the class are based on a common contention and that the
determination of the truth or falsity of this contention “will resolve an issue that is central
to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. In other
words, plaintiffs must have a common question of fact or law that will connect many
individual claims to the relief sought by the class. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657
F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 2011). Mr. Hamilton claims that there is one question of law that
is common to the class: “whether, under Colorado Law, a premium rate, or shift
differential, offered at time and a half for work performed on a holiday must be included
in the calculation of the regular rate for that week.” Docket No. 26 at 6. Mr. Hamilton
states that “[t]he viability of Hamilton’s and the Class’s claims all depend on the answer
to that question.” Id. However, the Colorado Supreme Court has now answered that
question in the affirmative. Hamilton, 555 P.3d at 629. This raises the question of
whether the Colorado Supreme Court’s holding has the effect of resolving the issue of
liability and, if so, whether any other common question remains.
Moreover, Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement imposes an obligation
upon district courts to ensure that issues common to the class predominate over those
affecting only individual class members. Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 10

8
297 (3d Cir. 2011). Thus, even if a common question of law or fact remains, briefing is
required on whether that question predominates over issues affecting only individual
class members. The predominance criterion is “far more demanding” than Rule
23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591,
624 (1997). Rule 23(b)(3)’s purpose is to “ensure[ ] that the class will be certified only
when it would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote . . .
uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural
fairness or bringing about other undesirable results.” Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs., Inc. v.
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91, 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation and
citation omitted).
Mr. Hamilton states that, once the question as to Amazon’s liability is answered,
“all that remains is a question of damages owed to each Class Member.” Docket No. 26
at 10. Mr. Hamilton acknowledges that damages would vary for individual class
members, noting that, after the Court determines the issue of Amazon’s liability on a
class basis, it can “address individual damages questions by considering expert and/or
representative evidence, by holding a separate hearing on damages, or by appointing a
special master to determine each class member’s damages.” Id. at 12. “[W]hen
damages are likely to vary among class members, the class may be insufficiently
cohesive to warrant a class action suit.” Manouchehri v. Styles for Less, Inc., 2016 WL
3387473, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) (citing Anchem, 521 U.S. at 624). However,
“the fact that potential damages for individual class members vary is not fatal to a
motion for class certification if substantial common issues outweigh individual issues
regarding damages.” Wilkins v. Just Energy Grp., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 3d 798, 802 (N.D.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 10

9
Ill. 2016) (citing Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2013);
William B. Rubenstein, et al., Newberg on Class Actions, vol. 2, § 4:54 (5th ed. 2012)).
Accordingly, it is appropriate for the parties to brief whether any common issues of law
or fact remain and, if so, whether those issues predominate over individual issues,
including issues of damages.
Rule 23(b)(3) also imposes a superiority requirement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
In order to satisfy this requirement, class resolution must be “superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at
615. Mr. Hamilton’s briefing on superiority discusses how the “central issue” of this
case is whether “the FLSA holiday premium exemption must be read into Colorado law.”
Docket No. 26 at 11. Moreover, it notes that certifying a class action will serve the
interest of judicial efficiency because the Court can determine Amazon’s liability on a
class basis and then address individual damages questions. Thus, because the holding
in Hamilton seemingly resolved the “central issue” of this case, the briefing on
superiority is outdated. 4
Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to certify class action without
prejudice due to the outdated briefing. If Mr. Hamilton chooses to refile the motion, the
parties should address whether the Colorado Supreme Court’s holding has resolved
issues of liability regarding Amazon and, if so, whether class certification is still
appropriate.
4 Conversely, Mr. Hamilton’s briefing on numerosity, typicality, and adequacy—
the remaining requirements of Rule 23(a)—largely remains relevant. One exception is
that, under adequacy, the briefing discusses the ability of attorney Victoria Guzman to
represent the class. Docket No. 26 at 8-9. However, Ms. Guzman has withdrawn her
representation of Mr. Hamilton and is no longer working on this case. Docket No. 95.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 10

10
IV. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Certify Class Action [Docket No. 26] is DENIED
without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that Mr. Hamilton may refile a motion for class certification on or
before March 20, 2026.
DATED February 20, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
____	__	__	__	__	_____ _____________________	______
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 105 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 10