Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc.

── Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESSICA GESSELE; ASHLEY No. 23-2522 ORTIZ; NICOLE GESSELE; D.C. No. TRICIA TETRAULT; CHRISTINA 3:14-cv-01092- MAULDIN, on behalf of themselves HZ and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellees, ORDER AND v. AMENDED OPINION JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant - Appellant. JESSICA GESSELE; ASHLEY No. 23-2527 ORTIZ; NICOLE GESSELE; D.C. No. TRICIA TETRAULT; CHRISTINA 3:14-cv-01092- MAULDIN, HZ Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JACK IN THE BOX INC., Defendant - Appellee. 2 GESSELE V. JACK IN THE BOX INC. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 20, 2025 Portland, Oregon Filed November 25, 2025 Amended April 20, 2026 Before: CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., AND SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. SUMMARY * Wage and Hour Claims / Oregon Law The panel filed (1) an order replacing the opinion filed on November 25, 2025, with an amended opinion, and denying Appellees’ petition for panel rehearing as moot; and (2) an amended opinion reversing in part and affirming in part the district court’s judgment in a wage-and-hour case brought by plaintiffs against their former employer, Jack in the Box (JITB), on behalf of themselves and a class of other former employees. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  GESSELE V. JACK IN THE BOX INC. 3 Plaintiffs challenged three JITB policies: JITB overdeducted its employees’ wages for the Workers’ Benefit Fund (WBF), JITB did not pay workers for interrupted meal periods more than 20 minutes long, and JITB deducted employees’ pay for non-slip shoes. Plaintiffs prevailed on the WBF claims, and JITB defeated the unpaid break and shoe claims. JITB appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment on the WBF, the shoe claims, and the unpaid break claims, and remanded. Addressing JITB’s appeal concerning the WBF overdeductions, the panel held that the district court erred in finding, at summary judgment, that JITB’s overdeductions were willful such that JITB owed penalty wages, and remanded for a trial on willfulness. To help the district court and the parties retry the case, the panel also provided guidance on a penalty wage theory the parties call “Late Final Pay 1”—a claim for penalty wages for WBF overdeductions but not minimum wage or overtime violations—and the constitutional limits on penalty wages. Next, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exclude the class members whose mailed notices were undeliverable, nor did the district court err in refusing to reduce the prejudgment interest for plaintiffs’ alleged delays. However, on remand, the district court will have to recalculate the prejudgment interest in light of the holding on willfulness. Addressing plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, the panel held that it had jurisdiction. Because the district court granted JITB’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion, the 30-day deadline of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ran from the amended judgment, and the cross-appeal was timely. 4 GESSEL