The Ninth Circuit decided one matter concerning a civil rights action against a school district, and another involving an employment discrimination claim.
Rutti v. Vermillion, No. 07-56599, was a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant's vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes.
The court of appeals affirmed partial summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer's vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the court reversed the judgment in part on the ground that, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff's postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff's principal activities.
Doe v. Kamehamema Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, No. 09-15448, was a racial discrimination action against a school district in which plaintiffs, four minor children, sought to proceed anonymously in their suit. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow anonymity because the district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that plaintiffs did not reasonably fear severe harm.